Q5 - In defending the Hyperion School

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

"Some" newspaper editors simply isn't strong enough to challenge the conclusion that the Hyperion School of Journalism is of value to its students. Also, answer choice (B) says that they believe it's not a necessary part of the training of a journalist, but just because something isn't necessary, doesn't mean that it isn't valuable!

(A) weakens the argument. If more than half of the students at the Hyperion School of Journalism already had jobs, then the fact that only 65% had jobs afterward, does not show that the school provided much of a service to its students.
(B) is tempting but not correct for the reasons above.
(C) is irrelevant.
(D) is irrelevant. We would need to know whether those other schools were of value to their students before this information could be useful.
(E) says that the school is selective, but not necessarily valuable!

[perng.yan]

Could someone please post an explanation for this one?

I can't understand why (A) is the one that undermines the defense of the dean..
if more than half of the school's students CAME from jobs in journalism to improve their skills.. then wouldn't that show that the program IS valuable or successful? because these people are coming to learn from this program...

I could see how (A) made some sense, but could someone clarify this for me? thanks.

[bbirdwell]

This has to do with the reasoning of the dean, and not merely the conclusion.

He cites successful job placement as evidence that the program is valuable to students.

(A) says that more than 50% of the students already had jobs in journalism. This weakens the dean's evidence, because if they already had jobs in journalism, then they didn't need the school's help.

It's the only choice that even comes close -- the others are either wholly irrelevant or strengthen the dean's claim.

[redcobra21]

Sorry guys, I don't see how your explanations for this question make any sense.

The dean's reasoning is that because 65 percent of graduates found jobs (premise), the program has value to students (conclusion).

To me, (A) at best has no effect on the argument and at worst actually strengthens the argument. If "more than half of the students" (which could mean 51%) originally had jobs, and after going through the program, 65% found jobs, that means there was an increase from 51% who had jobs to 65% who had jobs. This is not a big increase, but it would still strengthen the dean's argument that the program at least provided some value since 14% more students now have jobs. Even if the 51% of the people who came from jobs in journalism were among the 65%, that still means that 14% of people who did not have jobs before now have jobs, meaning that the program was of value to them. (A) is not concrete enough for you to know that it will weaken the argument (it would only weaken if by "more than half" they meant a number greater than 65 percent, like 90 percent originally had jobs but now only 65 percent had jobs, but we have no idea this is the case).

What's more, (A) is about how more than half of these people came to improve their skills. Looking at the problem from this angle would seem to indicate that these students could have derived value from the program even though they might not have found a job. In that case, the dean's argument would apply to how the people who previously did not have jobs now in fact have jobs.

I don't agree with bbirdwell's argument that none of the other choices comes close. (B) isn't the best argument, but I feel like it is certainly better than (A). If there are some newspaper editors who do not regard journalism school as a necessary part of training, that would weaken the dean's argument since some newspaper editors (i.e. the people in charge of doing the hiring) do not think that you need to go to journalism school in order to get a job. In that case, the dean's argument would be severely weakened since you have no idea whether the 65% of graduates were hired BECAUSE they went to the journalism school. They might have been hired even if they had not gone - who knows? The editors' position is enough to introduce some doubt to the dean's reasoning.

I agree that the "some" is a little troubling, but I remember that there were definitely cases of weaken questions where "some" was used in the correct answer choice (i.e. PT 21, S3, Q23 about vacuum amps). So I don't think that's enough to write off answer choice (B).

Just wondering what your guys thoughts are? This problem is bugging me so hopefully you guys can clear something up!

[maryadkins]

If "more than half of the students" (which could mean 51%) originally had jobs, and after going through the program, 65% found jobs, that means there was an increase from 51% who had jobs to 65% who had jobs.

Even 14% is a much, much lower number than the 65% the dean throws out. Thus, it's a weaker argument.

I agree that the "some" is a little troubling, but I remember that there were definitely cases of weaken questions where "some" was used in the correct answer choice (i.e. PT 21, S3, Q23 about vacuum amps). So I don't think that's enough to write off answer choice (B).

PT21, S3, Q3 is a different kind of argument. Its conclusion is that one kind of amp is indisputably better than another due to its superiority when it comes to certain features. All we have to do to weaken it is introduce other features that aren't being considered. That's why "some" works in (C); it introduces what the argument is altogether overlooking.

In this question about the journalism school, the dean isn't overlooking an obvious loophole that "some editors" (which by the way, could be two of them) don't think J-school is necessary. If only two newspaper editors see J-school as unnecessary, that doesn't attack the dean's reasoning, which is based on employment stats.

It's an important substantive distinction and an illustration of why there isn't a hard and fast rule with regard to the word "some" in answer choices.

Hope this helps.

[redcobra21]

Great response! Thanks for clearing that up Mary - sure helps a lot