Faulty CAT question

[SaifulI24]

Hello,


The below is a question that appeared in my CAT.

For-profit colleges serve far fewer students than either public or private non-profit colleges. At the same time, relative to non-profit colleges, for-profit colleges draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid, such as tuition grants and guaranteed loans, for their students. It must be, then, that for-profit colleges enroll a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged students than do non-profit colleges.

In assessing the argument above, it would be most useful to compare


a) the proportion of financially disadvantaged students served by public and private non-profit college
b) the extent to which for-profit and non-profit colleges engage in fraudulent practices in helping their students obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid
c) the number of students receiving federal and state financial aid at for-profit colleges and non-profit colleges
d) the quality of education received by financially disadvantaged students at for-profit colleges and non-profit colleges
e) the rates of default on loan repayments among graduates of for-profit and non-profit colleges


The answer here is B supposedly.

official explanation: However, the author assumes that there is no other reason for the increased level of aid. Maybe students at other colleges are less aware of the aid available to them, or perhaps some other factor at for-profit colleges makes the students more likely apply for aid, or to be granted that aid once they apply. Maybe the financial aid officers at those schools are especially skilled at bringing in the grants.

I agree with the above, the only issue here is that in an evaluate question, when you affirm and negate the answer choice it should validate and invalidate the conclusion (test of extremes). When you affirm answer choice B the conclusion runs into the problem above - great, you invalidated the conclusion. When you negate it, it doesn't do anything to the conclusion - that's a problem since it should validate it. There could be a multitude of other reasons besides fraud that explain the proportions, so it doesn't necessarily validate the conclusion. Hence answer choice B cannot be correct.

When I google the original question it shows up as an assumption question but it looks like MGMAT repurposed this as an evaluate.

Is my rationale correct?

[esledge]

In its current form as an Evaluate question, it is like a Strengthen/Weaken together (which are still related to Assumptions). For stand-alone Strengthen (or Weaken) questions, the choice that "most strengthens" (or "most weakens") can still be a pretty feeble strengthener (or weakener). In other words, you could choose to evaluate a choice in its most extreme form, just to better see the effect (example: if it says "the price of X could rise," you could ask yourself "what happens if the price rises a lot?"), but even so, the effect on the conclusion does not have to be extreme for the answer to be correct. In other words, a good weakener just has to be marginally bad (more bad than "nothing"), or even just potentially bad. This is where I think you are demanding too much:

I agree with the above, the only issue here is that in an evaluate question, when you affirm and negate the answer choice it should validate and invalidate the conclusion (test of extremes). When you affirm answer choice B the conclusion runs into the problem above - great, you invalidated the conclusion. When you negate it, it doesn't do anything to the conclusion - that's a problem since it should validate it. There could be a multitude of other reasons besides fraud that explain the proportions, so it doesn't necessarily validate the conclusion. Hence answer choice B cannot be correct.

"Validation" and "Invalidation" keep the bar too high -- the right answer doesn't have to reach that level. I also think it's not as imbalanced between affirmation and negation as you do (affirming (B) doesn't necessarily invalidate the conclusion completely, in my opinion).

It sounds like you correctly identified that the author is assuming that "aid is based on financial need," which is the missing link between more fed/state aid and more "financially disadvantaged" students. Here's how to think about (B):

If there is A LOT OF unneeded aid obtained, then the students who got it might not be financially disadvantaged.
If there is MINIMAL unneeded aid obtained, then the students who got it might actually be financially disadvantaged.

These do have opposite effects on the conclusion (this is what's important); they don't have to be equally "weighted" between good and bad.