CR: public vs private high school

[phillip.yoo]

According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?

*Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement.
*While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county.
*In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education.
*In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges.
*Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges.

The explanation asserts that the answer is E. However, in my view, 30% of public high school graduates become farmers and that is precisely why one should avoid the public high school if one aspires to pursue college. I thought the answer is D because an athletic program at PH increases one’s chance of college acceptance.
Can someone explain further to me?

[jnelson0612]

Let's think about D. Okay, that's nice that public schools provide these activities, but is it really helping the students get into college? We know that 90% of private school students and 65% of public school students go to college; thus, public school students' access to these activities is not giving them a huge edge over private school students.

What is going on here? The author is trying to assert that merely going to private school CAUSES the students to go to college at a higher rate than if the students had gone to public school. What do you think of this argument? I think it's pretty goofy because it's much more likely that this actually has to do with a difference in the two groups of students, not that private school in itself causes college attendance. To me, it makes more sense to consider the possibility that students who go to private school come from families who place a high value on education and can afford to send the students. Thus, it's really about differences between the two groups rather than the public vs. private issue.

Okay, so to weaken this argument I find a choice that affirms this idea. E works nicely. E points out that the types of students attending the two types of schools are different: public school students are naturally less inclined to attend college and more likely to become farmers. If we stuck them in private school this state of affairs would not change; they are just a different population.

[i.ankurjaini]

Have been following this question on few websites on internet, but still not satisfied with "E".
This is what I think :
The conclusion is - If parents want their children to go to College, then they should first send their children to PRIVATE schools. And this is because one of the premises says likelihood of going to college is higher for private school students.

Now, to weaken this (i.e, I should find a statement which says - NO, Public schools children also go to College), I should find a statement which says "going to College for Public school students is also easy/affordable/supported" (considering the fact that private schools are costly).

The only statement which says this is C - "In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education."

Let me know, if I stand correct.
If not, would be very thankful if you can make some effort to convince me with the option E.

Thanks,
Ankur

[tim]

E provides an alternate explanation for why fewer public school students go to college. take out the farmers, and the percentage of the remaining public school students going to college is actually higher than for private schools. as long as going to private school does not change a student's predetermined likelihood of going into farming, E totally destroys the argument..

[karizmaticafroz]

E provides an alternate explanation for why fewer public school students go to college. take out the farmers, and the percentage of the remaining public school students going to college is actually higher than for private schools. as long as going to private school does not change a student's predetermined likelihood of going into farming, E totally destroys the argument..

Hi Tim,
Even I a not convinced with E.
The main thing which we are trying to do here is say - "Sending your children to private school is not going increase the likelihood that they will attend college"
So we can either
1) show that its equally likely in both public/private school.
2) Its more likely in a public school.

Now option E does not do any of the two. When you say, removing 30% gives a greater percentage of children from the leftover 70% inclined for college, I think that is not the point we are trying to prove here. The option E gives information that we have 30% from public schools who pursue farming, not to ignore them from the total number of students in public school. All I can say that E provides more proof that private school students are more inclined towards college.

Now when I see the other options

1) Oh! Higher grades can be a reason for colleges accepting private school students. But it doesn't show how much more/less private students are inclined towards college.
2) Not relevant
3) Not relevant again.
4) Now this one shows that there are certain reasons why a student from public school would go to college. Now, making a student ACCEPT college education is different from GOING to college. Chances are there that the college doesn't accept a student.

The first premise says - "....private high schools in a certain country CONTINUE (GO) their...." .
conclusion: "...increase the LIKELIHOOD that their children WILL attend college..."

So looking at all the choices, I am actually not satisfied with any of the, :-( ..

Please help me and point out if I am missing something here...

[jnelson0612]

Here's the thing . . . on the GMAT, you have to choose an answer. You have to choose the "best" answer. Which answer would you choose?

[karizmaticafroz]

I would choose 4

[jnelson0612]

I would choose 4

The problem with D is that it doesn't square with the stated facts in the argument. If public schools are so great and increase the likelihood that a student will be accepted to college, why do 90% of private students attend college and only 65% of public students attend college? The correct answer must not violate a factual premise.

[mcmebk]

I also struggle among C, D & E, but at the same find neither of the answers is satisfactory enough:

1) C would work, if the concerned "parents" are those who are under financial pressure - Going to public school would increase the likelihood than going to private school, because in public school, there will be a less risk of not being able to go to college for having no money;

2) D would work, if the concerned "Children" are those who have special talents in sports;

3) E would work, if the concerned "Children" are those who have decided their future path, which is to go to college; otherwise students are more likely to choose farming as an occupation than continue attending schools after graduation.

Any thoughts?

[jnelson0612]

I also struggle among C, D & E, but at the same find neither of the answers is satisfactory enough:

1) C would work, if the concerned "parents" are those who are under financial pressure - Going to public school would increase the likelihood than going to private school, because in public school, there will be a less risk of not being able to go to college for having no money;

2) D would work, if the concerned "Children" are those who have special talents in sports;

3) E would work, if the concerned "Children" are those who have decided their future path, which is to go to college; otherwise students are more likely to choose farming as an occupation than continue attending schools after graduation.

Any thoughts?

I want to help, but I can't understand what you are saying in #1. Can you check your grammar and write again? :-)

As far a D, please read the thread. We've explained a few times why D is not the answer.

[er.sukantsharma]

Just one issue regarding option (e), it is talking only about public schools located in rural areas and 30% of students opting for farming rather than going to college. What about the colleges in urban areas..?
There would be certain percentage of students in urban areas as well. Isn't this option making an assumption that the percentage could be same for urban and rural areas while in the question it is clearly talking about the schools of the entire country.

[RonPurewal]

Just one issue regarding option (e), it is talking only about public schools located in rural areas and 30% of students opting for farming rather than going to college. What about the colleges in urban areas..?
There would be certain percentage of students in urban areas as well. Isn't this option making an assumption that the percentage could be same for urban and rural areas while in the question it is clearly talking about the schools of the entire country.

We are concerned with the overall trend. Choice E says that most public schools are in rural areas, so we know that the future farmers' influence is enough to skew the statistics.

[BIMANT52]

Hi,

Excerpt:
"Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools."

What if a parent, who is a FARMER, wants his kid to attend college, and not end up as a farmer??
In that case option C doesn't weaken, rather strengthen the argument.

In one of the replies I read, "E provides an alternate explanation for why fewer public school students go to college. take out the farmers, and the percentage of the remaining public school students going to college is actually higher than for private schools."
... But they are still in school, and BELONG to farmer-families. They are not farmers... at least not yet!!

Option C is a far far better answer than option E.

[RonPurewal]

no; choice C simply implies that public-school graduates are less likely to be wealthy ("more likely to receive need-based financial aid").

if choice C implied that the choice to attend a private school would actually diminish a student's chance of receiving financial aid, then it would weaken the argument; however, it implies no such thing.

[RonPurewal]

What if a parent, who is a FARMER, wants his kid to attend college, and not end up as a farmer??

this is not a valid objection to anything.

in fact, choice E implies the existence of a substantial number of such people. (if the rural areas are populated primarily-- i.e., more than %50-- by farmers, but only %30 of the students plan to forgo college, then a lot of the farmers' kids are going to college.)