The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?
Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.
The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
MGMAT says :
The conclusion is that the government has "practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget." The basis for that claim is that Pell grants improve access to higher education, which allows lower-income students to improve their economic standing. The main assumption this argument relies on is that Pell grants are the only means available to lower-income students who wish to access higher education. The correct answer will weaken the conclusion by contradicting this assumption.
However I thought the conclusion to be
"the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen" because of the government not increasing Pell grants .
Keeping this in mind , I chose answer D which essentially says that Pell grant covers only a small portion of the costs and thus it is not a big factor .
An error in judging the conclusion is a very basic mistake . Is this a tricky question or I really messed it up ?
Tutors ,Please help
GMAT Forum
5 postsPage 1 of 1
- Guest101
- venky79
wat is mgmats answer
is it B ?
- Guest101
the correct answer
The correct answer is A .
- Guest
Correct answer is okay. But I agree with Guest101 that either of hte two seem like good conclusions, although I chose B after I thought the conclusion was that the gap will widen. MG guys, sorry I started a new thread somewhere else, I'll post my question here.
The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?
A-Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.
B-The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
C-Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
D-On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
E-Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
I have a doubt in this question, what is the conclusion. "Current administration has practiced bad policy" OR "Without this acces, the gap between the rich and poor will continue to widen"
The explanation says the conclusion is the latter. and so arrives at the answer A
My argument is, it is equally convenient to take the widening gap as the conclusion, and to weaken it, if we can show that the gap was in fact not being narrowed down by pell grants, we can arrive at a conclusion. So consider B, it says the neediest often lacked information about hte pell grants (and so could not make use of it) thus the people who did use the grants were those who were already well to do and so these grants actually did little to narrow the gap, thus B.
If once points out that lacking information is not sufficient to assume that they did not use it, similarly for A then it can also be argued that the total amount that is spent will increase but it could be for ex to increase capacity at colleges which would not help the poor get admit and when the govt could be giving grants to needy its making more colleges and increasing capacity which the needy cannot access in first place.
Basically, my doubt is, how can we be sure that the conclusion is in the first line in this case and not in the last. Both look like strong conclusions.
The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?
A-Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.
B-The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
C-Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
D-On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
E-Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
I have a doubt in this question, what is the conclusion. "Current administration has practiced bad policy" OR "Without this acces, the gap between the rich and poor will continue to widen"
The explanation says the conclusion is the latter. and so arrives at the answer A
My argument is, it is equally convenient to take the widening gap as the conclusion, and to weaken it, if we can show that the gap was in fact not being narrowed down by pell grants, we can arrive at a conclusion. So consider B, it says the neediest often lacked information about hte pell grants (and so could not make use of it) thus the people who did use the grants were those who were already well to do and so these grants actually did little to narrow the gap, thus B.
If once points out that lacking information is not sufficient to assume that they did not use it, similarly for A then it can also be argued that the total amount that is spent will increase but it could be for ex to increase capacity at colleges which would not help the poor get admit and when the govt could be giving grants to needy its making more colleges and increasing capacity which the needy cannot access in first place.
Basically, my doubt is, how can we be sure that the conclusion is in the first line in this case and not in the last. Both look like strong conclusions.
- jwinawer
- ManhattanGMAT Staff
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:15 pm
Please see my answer to the first thread on this question:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... html#17125
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... html#17125
5 posts Page 1 of 1