While the total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools

The SEC (the Sondland Education Commission, not the Securities Exchange Commission or college football's Southeastern Conference) has predicted that there will be a teacher shortage in Sondland's public elementary and secondary schools as early as the next academic year. The conclusion of this passage is that the prediction is unfounded (or, as defined by Google, "having no foundation or basis in fact").

Why does the author believe that the prediction is unfounded?

• The number of teachers has increased by three percent.
• The number of students has only increased by one percent.
• Given those percentages, the ratio of teachers to students must have increased.
• Since the ratio of teachers to student has increased, the author concludes that there should not be a shortage.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the author's conclusion?


This doesn't tell us anything about the number of teachers. If anything, choice (A) suggests that Sondland will be able to afford teachers in the future. Regardless, this does not weaken the author's conclusion and can be eliminated.


Information about the teachers' salaries doesn't tell us anything about the NUMBER of teachers or students at the schools. If the salaries did NOT increase with inflation, then that might be evidence that some teachers would consider quitting. However, the fact that the salaries kept pace with inflation does not weaken the conclusion, so (B) can be eliminated.


Uh oh, now Sondland's schools are in trouble.... the evidence in the passage suggests that the ratio of teachers to students will increase slightly, but what if that's not good enough? What if Sondland needs ten percent more teachers per pupil? In that case, the tiny increase in the ratio of teachers to students might not be enough. Choice (C) seriously weakens the conclusion, so hang on to this one.


This just tells us that the evidence in the passage is consistent with what's happened in the past. This statement might suggest that the trend will continue, but that would only strengthen the author's argument. We are looking for a weakener, so eliminate (D).


Choice (E) tells us that Sondland will be training fewer teachers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Sondland will hire fewer teachers (they might hire teachers who were trained elsewhere). Even if we do assume that the decline mentioned in choice (E) will lead to a decline in the number of teachers, it certainly wouldn't lead to a "teacher shortage as early as next academic year" (as stated in the conclusion). It would take at least another year to feel the effect of this decline. Choice (E) might be evidence that there will be a teacher shortage eventually, but choice (C) most seriously weakens the author's specific conclusion.

(C) is the best answer.
_________________

While the total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland is one percent higher this academic year than last academic year, the number of teachers there increased by three percent. Thus, the Sondland Education Commission's prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded.

Type - weaken

A. Funding for public elementary schools in Sondland is expected to increase over the next ten years. - Irrelevant
B. Average salaries for Sondland’s teachers increased at the rate of inflation from last academic year to this academic year. - Irrelevant
C. A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year.- Correct
D. In the past, increases in enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland have generally been smaller than increases in the number of teachers.- - Irrelevant- this was true for the current year too but does not say anything about next year's shortage
E. Because of reductions in funding, the number of students enrolling in teacher-training programs in Sondland is expected to decline beginning in the next academic year. -Irrelevant - this tells that number of students is likely to decrease and does not say anything about next year's shortage

Answer C
_________________

While the total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland is one percent higher this academic year than last academic year, the number of teachers there increased by three percent. Thus, the Sondland Education Commission's prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim that the prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded?

A. Funding for public elementary schools in Sondland is expected to increase over the next ten years.
We are not worried about the funding.

B. Average salaries for Sondland’s teachers increased at the rate of inflation from last academic year to this academic year.
We are not worried about the salaries

C. A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year.
Correct. If per student 10% more teachers will be required, then there will be shortage.

D. In the past, increases in enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland have generally been smaller than increases in the number of teachers.
Not worried about the proportion of students w.r.t. teachers

E. Because of reductions in funding, the number of students enrolling in teacher-training programs in Sondland is expected to decline beginning in the next academic year.
We are worried about the teachers and not about the teachers to be.

While the total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland is one percent higher this academic year than last academic year, the number of teachers there increased by three percent. Thus, the Sondland Education Commission's prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim that the prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded?

A. Funding for public elementary schools in Sondland is expected to increase over the next ten years.
- Even if this were the case, who says funding is directly related to the number of teachers? could go to new technology for the school system, book materials, etc.
B. Average salaries for Sondland’s teachers increased at the rate of inflation from last academic year to this academic year.
- Does not give us any future prediction/evidence. What happened last year and this year are irrelevant, we care more about predicting the future
C. A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year.
- Why would SEC predict a shortage when a law requires more teachers/pupil be substantially higher than this year?
D. In the past, increases in enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland have generally been smaller than increases in the number of teachers.
- Same issue as B. Does not give us any prediction about what is coming in the future
E. Because of reductions in funding, the number of students enrolling in teacher-training programs in Sondland is expected to decline beginning in the next academic year.
- out of scope. what are teacher-training programs? we don't care about whatever that is, we only care about total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools.

Kudos please if you find helpful

Premise: While the total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland is one percent higher this academic year than last academic year, the number of teachers there increased by three percent.

Conclusion: the Sondland Education Commission's prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded.

In order to weaken the conclusion, we need to prove that for some reason there will be a shortage of teachers as early as next year.

Pre-thinking scenario A: What if the population of school students rises exponentially with respect to population of teachers in the next year
Pre-thinking scenario B: What if the population of teachers reduces drastically with respect to population of students in the next year

Option A: Out of scope
Talks about funding of school over a period of ten years. The argument does not mention any correlation between population of teachers/students and funding. Moreover, the period taken into consideration (10yrs) is significantly more than that in the argument (next academic year)

Option B: Out of scope/No affect
Relation between salary and inflation rate has no affect on teacher enrollment.

Option C: No affect
This option talks about a new ratio - teachers per pupil. While the argument provides info about % increase in student and teacher population, it does not give any fact related to CURRENT student or teacher population. Hence, we cannot determine the number of teachers next year.

Option D: No affect
This option talks about a past trend. The argument does not provide sufficient information whether the trend will continue in the future. Moreover, this option talks about numbers and the argument only mentions percentage.

Option E: Weakens
Aligns with Pre-thinking scenario B. Starting next year, the number of teachers graduating from Teacher training school will be affected. Hence, a teacher shortage can be predicted as early as next year.

Answer : E

While the total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland is one percent higher this academic year than last academic year, the number of teachers there increased by three percent. Thus, the Sondland Education Commission's prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim that the prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded?

WEAKEN -- task at hand is to prove that the Sondland Education Commission's prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is founded or totally relevant.

A. Funding for public elementary schools in Sondland is expected to increase over the next ten years.
Out of scope. As we are not sure this "FUNDING" is for what? This answer is irrelevant. From the argument we cannot correlate the "funding" as well as the "number of teachers". The funding for the schools can be for anything, such as for improvement in infrastructure of schools, new computers, etc.. INCORRECT.

At the most, even if we assume that this funding is for the recruitment of more teachers, this will strengthen the argument instead of weakening it. As more funding, more recruiting, no shortage.

B. Average salaries for Sondland’s teachers increased at the rate of inflation from last academic year to this academic year.
Out of scope. Knowing the relation between the salaries and the rate of inflation is in no way helpful to weaken the argument. We are concerned with the "number" of teachers not with the trends of their salaries w.r.t the rate of inflation from last academic year to this academic year. Incorrect.

C. A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year.
Correct. If per student 10% more teachers will be required, then there will be shortage. As per the current trend -- the number of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland increased by three percent this year w.r.t the previous year. So, if this trend continues the next year, then there will definitely be a shortage of teachers as per the mandated law.

Also, for this answer choice I was not 100% sure in the beginning to be correct because we are assuming that the trend of this year will continue the next year OR at the most the number of teachers will be the same as this year. But I kept this choice on hold. After POE, this choice was the best among the lot.

D. In the past, increases in enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland have generally been smaller than increases in the number of teachers.
Irrelevant- this was true for the current year too but does not say anything about next year's shortage. The comparison of past trends related to increases in "enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland" and "the number of teachers" has nothing to do with question at hand. As it does not provide any reason for the next year's shortage of teachers.

E. Because of reductions in funding, the number of students enrolling in teacher-training programs in Sondland is expected to decline beginning in the next academic year.
This choice is enticing and is probably a TRAP ANSWER choice.
As we are not concerned about the TO BE teachers. We are concerned about the shortage of teachers in the next academic year. Anyways these students cannot be the teachers for the next academic year. Even we are not sure of the duration of this teacher-training program. It can be a 2 year long program as well. So, knowing the details of the number of students enrolling in the teacher-training program is again irrelevant for answering the teacher shortage in the next academic year. Incorrect.

@Gmatninja, @GmatninjaTwo,

I think GMAC keeps its head always high by making things SOUND complicated than they really ARE. Is not Q stem simply- Which of the following, if true, would undermine author's claim? I approached this as a simple WEAKEN Q than questioning about implementing a program or questioning a prediction. Is this approach correct too?
_________________

adkikani, yes, this is basically a simple weaken question! The author claims that the prediction is unfounded, and we need an answer choice that weakens that claim.

Regardless of how you label the question type, what's important is that you understand the structure of the author's argument, as described in the post below. If you find an answer choice that weakens that argument, then you've found your answer!
_________________

Let the number of students last year be x: this year it has become 1.01x --> choose smart number say 1000 becomes 1010

Let the number of teachers last year be y: this year it has become 1.03y --> choose smart number say 100 becomes 103

Conclusion:-Thus, the Sondland Education Commission's prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded.

Correct Option must weaken the aforesaid conclusion & say something about teacher shortage still exists.

Option C does that perfectly:- A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year.
Therefore: A minuscule increase in the ratio of teachers to students might not be enough in fulfilling the law requirement of ten percent more teachers per pupil.
_________________

A. Funding for public elementary schools in Sondland is expected to increase over the next ten years. - out of focus.

B. Average salaries for Sondland’s teachers increased at the rate of inflation from last academic year to this academic year. - out of focus.

C. A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year.
Yes, this demands students to be more than teachers and Weakens the conclusion.

D. In the past, increases in enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland have generally been smaller than increases in the number of teachers.
- out of focus.

E. Because of reductions in funding, the number of students enrolling in teacher-training programs in Sondland is expected to decline beginning in the next academic year.
- out of focus.

Why SEC think there is a teacher shortage?
Reason - the total enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland is one percent higher this academic year than last academic year, the number of teachers there increased by three percent.

Well, percentage figures are always suspicious. Let say there were 10000 students and with an increase of 1%, count became 10100. while teachers were 100 with a increase of 3% count became 103. now numbers do not look as cool as they were . So for such SEC has some point to make. Lets take a look on options for the weakner.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim that the prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded?

A. Funding for public elementary schools in Sondland is expected to increase over the next ten years. --- this has nothing to do with shortage of teacher.

B. Average salaries for Sondland’s teachers increased at the rate of inflation from last academic year to this academic year. --- irrelevant.

C. A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year. --- Now this point made a need of more teachers. SEC knew about it and that is why they predicted about it.

D. In the past, increases in enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland have generally been smaller than increases in the number of teachers. ---- past does not define the future.

E. Because of reductions in funding, the number of students enrolling in teacher-training programs in Sondland is expected to decline beginning in the next academic year. ---- but why new will be hired if one don't has funds.

Hello folks,

I went through all explanations listed above but still cannot understand why answer choice C is correct and not E?

No where in the passage it states "percent per pupil". In question it says just the percentage of teachers. No where in the question it states % of teachers per pupil. How can we assume that mandate in C will lead to shortage?

Type: Weaken the conclusion

the summary of the passage is as follows:

the number of students enrolled in schools increased by 1%
the number of teachers increased by 3%

Conclusion: It is unreasonable to think that there will be a shortage of teacher as early as next year.

A. Funding for public elementary schools in Sondland is expected to increase over the next ten years. - does not tell us whether there will/will not be a shortage of teachers.

B. Average salaries for Sondland’s teachers increased at the rate of inflation from last academic year to this academic year. - this would actually provide a supportive reason for the teachers to stay on their job and hence strengthen the argument, not weaken it.

C. A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year. - With this new law in place, we now know that this increase is not up to the benchmark set by the law. The incapability to meet this benchmark suggests that there is something wrong, that there is some sort of shortage that does not allow to meet this benchmark. Hence, (C) weakens the conclusion. Therefore, (C) is the right answer choice.

D. In the past, increases in enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools in Sondland have generally been smaller than increases in the number of teachers. - (D) would lend support to the conclusion, not weaken it.

E. Because of reductions in funding, the number of students enrolling in teacher-training programs in Sondland is expected to decline beginning in the next academic year. - the conclusion is not concerned with the ''number of students''.


PS: if you feel like you need some help with the SC/CR section of the GMAT, please feel free to DM me.

jaisonsunny77

Option E states, "number of students enrolling in teacher training programs is expected to decline" which means less teachers? Though, it refers to number of students but it says their enrollment in "teacher training programs" which means they'll be teachers..

Correct me if my reasoning is wrong?

1) The passage does not mention ''teacher training programs'' explicitly.

2) We need to pay attention to the time frame highlighted in the passage : the passage is concerned with whether there will be a shortage of teachers as early as next academic year. (E) talks about a drop in the number of students enrolled in the teacher training program for next year; though that this drop does match the time frame mentioned in the passage, the effects of this drop (the shortage of teachers) would be felt at the conclusion of the training program, whose ''conclusion period'' is neither stated nor can be inferred from the passage. So, one could reasonably argue that the shortage of teachers will only be felt not next year, but several years later (after the conclusion of the training program that is expected to start next year). Since the passage is concerned with whether there will be a shortage of teachers ''next year'', (E) does not unambiguously weaken the conclusion cited (for the reasons explained in point #2)

Hope that this helps.

Hello experts,

I got this question wrong somehow. Can you please help me with this one?

In my opinion the passage says that:

1. 3% increase in number of teachers
2. 1% increase in number of students.
3. So, no shortage of teachers.

Now we need to weaken point 3. So we need to find an option which says something like there'll be shortage of teachers.

So how does C weaken?

C says that suppose there 50 teachers per pupil this year, so from next year we'll have 55 teachers per pupil. So how does it weaken?


Earlier I thought C would strengthen because there would be more teachers, and more teachers wouldn't mean shortage. But now I think C has no impact.

I am a bit confused with this one.

Thank you in advance!


VeritasKarishma GMATNinja AndrewN AjiteshArun
EducationAisle

The argument says that since the total enrollement increased by 1% more than last year and teacher are thrice more so ]the claim that next year teacher shortage will be there is unfoundedthis the conclusion

Our work is to says no there will be shortage of teachers anyhow so lets check options here-
A) Is there any link btw funding and teacher shortage no Not given in passage -Not our choice

B)Average salary increased -Again mention about finance relation with teacher -Irrelevant

D) With assumption that this trends continue this strength our passage -Strengthen

E)See no of student declining in next year would not impact the enrollement of teacher in next year so not again wrong

C)If law mandate 10%increase the teacher than the claim that shortage will be there is correct hence it weaken.....Bingo ryt answer

To correctly answer the question, we need a choice that answers the following:

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim that the prediction of a teacher shortage as early as next academic year is unfounded?

In other words, the choice will provide a reason to believe that there WILL be a teacher shortage.

(C) says the following:

C. A new law has mandated that there be ten percent more teachers per pupil in Sondland’s public schools next academic year than there were this academic year.

So, basically, what (C) says is that, regardless of how many teachers per pupil there are now, the schools will need 10 percent more teachers per pupil.

While we don't know for sure that that information means there will be a shortage, it does provides some reason to believe that there will be shortage, given that the passage says that the number of teachers at the schools has increased by only 3 percent.
_________________

Hi ashmit99,

Option C doesn't say that the schools will have 10% more teachers per pupil next year. Instead, it says that they'll need 10% more teachers per pupil next year. Let's take a look at C again:


Now, a law can mandate anything. Actually following through on that, however, is a different matter. Option C tells us that Sondland's public schools will need 10% more teachers next year if the number of students remains the same (they'll need even more teachers next year if the number of pupils goes up). The problem, of course, is that, given the 3% increase mentioned in the question, 10% (which is significantly more than 3%) looks like it could create some problems for Sondland's public schools.
_________________