Charter schools are independent public schools... CR

[TLC]

Charter schools are independent public schools that are given greater autonomy in exchange for increased accountability. Charter school operators are freed from many of the regulations of the traditional public school bureaucracy, thereby allowing them to pursue more innovative educational ideas than non-charter public schools can pursue. At the same time, charter schools are held accountable for achieving specific educational outcomes and are closed down if those outcomes are not met.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the assertion that students attending charter schools will, on average, perform better on assessments of writing ability than students attending traditional public schools?
A. Students who attend schools that emphasize order and discipline perform worse on assessments of writing ability than students who attend schools
that do not emphasize order and discipline.
B. The majority of students who score in the 99th percentile on assessments of writing ability attend charter schools.
C. Public schools that operate outside of the traditional public school bureaucracy spend more time teaching students writing than do traditional public
schools.
D. Students who attend schools that are allowed to experiment with their writing curricula perform better on assessments of writing ability than
students who attend schools that have less flexible curricula.
E. There are far more students attending non-charter public schools than students attending charter schools.

Originally I eliminated D, the correct answer choice because I felt like the "schools" they were referring to were not explicitly stated as charter vs. public schools, and I didn't want to automatically make that assumption. Are we allowed to make the assumption that the schools that are allowed to experiment is a [b]charter [/b]school and "schools that have less flexible curricula" are public schools? I'm trying to draw the line between when I'm allowed to assume certain information on critical reasoning problems when they are not explicitly stated and when I shouldn't assume... A little clarification would help-

[kylo]

A - "order and discipline" - out of scope.
B - ignores the possibility that bad teaching in charter schools can reduce writing ability of students scoring 99th percentile on assessments .
C - only time is mentioned & nothing has been mentioned about the quality of teaching.
E - immaterial.


hence IMO D.


Thanks!

[esledge]

Originally I eliminated D, the correct answer choice because I felt like the "schools" they were referring to were not explicitly stated as charter vs. public schools, and I didn't want to automatically make that assumption. Are we allowed to make the assumption that the schools that are allowed to experiment is a charter school and "schools that have less flexible curricula" are public schools? I'm trying to draw the line between when I'm allowed to assume certain information on critical reasoning problems when they are not explicitly stated and when I shouldn't assume... A little clarification would help-

This argument uses all of the following to describe charter schools and their operators:
--"independent public schools"
--"given greater autonomy"
--"freed from many of the regulations of the traditional public school bureaucracy"
--"(can) pursue more innovative educational ideas"
--"held accountable for achieving specific educational outcomes"

The language in (D) essentially rephrases the two bolded premises above: "schools that have less flexible curricula" = public schools that are regulated by traditional public school bureaucracy, and "schools that are allowed to experiment" = charter schools that can pursue innovative educational ideas. Synonymous restatements are acceptable; larger leaps of faith aren't.

[TLC]

The below problem is an example of why I get confused as to when I can make assumptions and when it can be seen as a "large leap of faith".

Owner of JavaJoint: Over the past year, the coffee store has become a daily hang-out for more and more teenagers. Many of our adult customers do not appear comfortable with this kind of crowd and some of them have told me that they will no longer stop here for a coffee drink. Since my goal is to maximize our revenue, I want you to discourage teenagers from coming here and start cultivating a more adult crowd.

Store manager: Are you sure? On average, each teenager spends just as much as the average adult does, and we have far more new customers than we have lost over the past year.

The store manager responds to the owner by _____
A. questioning the veracity of owner's evidence
B. arguing that it would be difficult to implement the owner's directive
C. offering new evidence implying that the status quo is not incompatible with the owner's goal
D. demonstrating that the average teenage customer is as profitable as the average adult customer
E. offering new evidence refuting that presented by the owner

The solution says that D is wrong because "The manager only states that the average teenager spends as much as the average adult; hence, he makes a claim as to the relative revenue generated by the average member of each group. He does not make any claim as to the relative profitability of the average member of each group."

So I'm assuming that we can't assume that profitability means an increase in revenue (the manager's goal) since P= R-C and we have no idea about the costs...etc. But I don't think the assumption that I made is that big of a leap since a store would want to maximize revenues to ultimately maximize profitability, right?

The only other reason why I think C is a better answer is that it doesn't get specific and is more general?

[esledge]

So I'm assuming that we can't assume that profitability means an increase in revenue (the manager's goal) since P= R-C and we have no idea about the costs...etc. But I don't think the assumption that I made is that big of a leap since a store would want to maximize revenues to ultimately maximize profitability, right?

The only other reason why I think C is a better answer is that it doesn't get specific and is more general?

Exactly, on both counts.

(1) The difference between revenue and profit actually is a big leap, because of that third factor, cost. You assumed that a store would want to maximize revenues to maximize profitability. Someone else might assume that a store would want to maximize profitability by minimizing costs. Yet another person might assume that the best way to maximize profitability is to aim for a combination of increased sales and decreased costs. Any of these assumptions could be right, but not all of them at once, and we can't know which one without more information.

Basically, the only outside knowledge you can rely on is vocabulary. In the charter school example above, you can rely on the dictionary definitions of regulated, flexible, innovative, and experiment to make the connection between the correct choice and the argument. In this JavaJoint example, the dictionary definitions of profit and revenue are different.

(2) The more specific answer (D) has something specifically wrong with it ("profitable"), whereas the more general answer (C) plays it safe ("new evidence" could be almost anything). Process of elimination works particularly well on Verbal GMAT questions because the right answer won't always sound the best, but critical evaluation of the other answers will reveal something specifically wrong.

[Guest]

Per EMILY:

The language in (D) essentially rephrases the two bolded premises above: "schools that have less flexible curricula" = public schools that are regulated by traditional public school bureaucracy, and "schools that are allowed to experiment" = charter schools that can pursue innovative educational ideas. Synonymous restatements are acceptable; larger leaps of faith aren't.

If I am not wrong somewherr in the CR book it states that repeat of the premises on support the conclusion questions is wrong direction.

Please let me know if this is not true

[JonathanSchneider]

But D also connects the charter schools to success on tests. It is filling a logic gap, not simply restating the premise. Otherwise, you'd be right: to support a premise we need to add something new, or counter-act something that seems to be an obstacle.

[chunyang.yu]

D. Students who attend schools that are allowed to experiment with their writing curricula perform better on assessments of writing ability than
students who attend schools that have less flexible curricula.

I am confused with this answer and the explanation offered above by Esledge.

it is true that "schools that are allowed to experiment with their writing curricula" can represent some of the charter schools do better than traditional schools, but it is insufficient to conclude that students attend charter schools, on average, perform better on assessments of writing ability than students attending traditional public schools. Because there is no information provided in the statement indicates that all the charter schools adopt the strategy mentioned in option D, it is quite possible only a small part of these charter school have done that.

Can anybody here explain that for me?
thanks

[mschwrtz]

The evidence is that charter schools are "allow(ed) to pursue more innovative educational ideas."

The conclusion is that charter schools will perform better on tests.

The gap is between being allowed to innovate and performing well, not between innovating and performing well, so D fits that gap perfectly.

[parthian7]

Originally I eliminated D, the correct answer choice because I felt like the "schools" they were referring to were not explicitly stated as charter vs. public schools, and I didn't want to automatically make that assumption. Are we allowed to make the assumption that the schools that are allowed to experiment is a charter school and "schools that have less flexible curricula" are public schools? I'm trying to draw the line between when I'm allowed to assume certain information on critical reasoning problems when they are not explicitly stated and when I shouldn't assume... A little clarification would help-

This argument uses all of the following to describe charter schools and their operators:
--"independent public schools"
--"given greater autonomy"
--"freed from many of the regulations of the traditional public school bureaucracy"
--"(can) pursue more innovative educational ideas"
--"held accountable for achieving specific educational outcomes"

The language in (D) essentially rephrases the two bolded premises above: "schools that have less flexible curricula" = public schools that are regulated by traditional public school bureaucracy, and "schools that are allowed to experiment" = charter schools that can pursue innovative educational ideas. Synonymous restatements are acceptable; larger leaps of faith aren't.

I fully understand why D is correct based on your very clear explanation above; and also why C is wrong:
since it introduces a new premise that is not shown to be tied to the conclusion anywhere in the text right?

I was wondering, however, if C provided that link, would it then qualify as a right answer?

i.e.
Charter schools have the luxury of spending more time teaching students writing since they operate outside of the traditional public school bureaucracy and research has shown that spending more time teaching students results in them getting better grades.

[tim]

i would caution you against ever asking "what if" questions about changing parts of verbal questions, because there are often several interconnected parts that cannot be fully accounted for by a single change. just focus on why the right answer is right and why all the wrong answers are wrong..

[SD501]

Originally I eliminated D, the correct answer choice because I felt like the "schools" they were referring to were not explicitly stated as charter vs. public schools, and I didn't want to automatically make that assumption. Are we allowed to make the assumption that the schools that are allowed to experiment is a charter school and "schools that have less flexible curricula" are public schools? I'm trying to draw the line between when I'm allowed to assume certain information on critical reasoning problems when they are not explicitly stated and when I shouldn't assume... A little clarification would help-

This argument uses all of the following to describe charter schools and their operators:
--"independent public schools"
--"given greater autonomy"
--"freed from many of the regulations of the traditional public school bureaucracy"
--"(can) pursue more innovative educational ideas"
--"held accountable for achieving specific educational outcomes"

The language in (D) essentially rephrases the two bolded premises above: "schools that have less flexible curricula" = public schools that are regulated by traditional public school bureaucracy, and "schools that are allowed to experiment" = charter schools that can pursue innovative educational ideas. Synonymous restatements are acceptable; larger leaps of faith aren't.

Sorry for reviving this post. I am confused between choice A and D. I agree that "freed from many of the regulations of the traditional public school bureaucracy" can be rephrased as more flexibility to "experiment with writing curricula". But is it the only way to rephrase it? "do not emphasize order and discipline" in choice A also sounds like fewer regulations. How can I know which interpretation is better?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Be clear what or who is being "freed from many of the regulations of the traditional public school bureaucracy". It's not the students themselves, but the school administration.

Perhaps a more important phrase is "thereby allowing them to pursue more innovative educational ideas". This is very close to "allowed to experiment with their writing curricula" mentioned in answer D.

Also, be sure you're not introducing your own bias. You probably have an assumption that an 'experimental' school is very liberal and has fewer rules for the students to follow. But the text doesn't say that.