High School Students

[goelmohit2002]

Hi All,

In the following powerscore CR bible question OA = A. Can someone please tell why not D ?

======================================================================
High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in high school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

Which one of the following if true about the last year, most seriously weakens the argument ?

a) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city.
b) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school.
c) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out.
d) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment.
e) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates.

[goelmohit2002]

even if d) is true, many students would have still dropped out to pursue jobs outside.we do not have sufficient proof to conclde that setting up the placement offices did in fact reduce the drop out rate.What if the students still preferred to drop out (due to financial problems may be....) without completing the high school.

But even if the placement program is able to stop even say 10-20 students then wouldn't it be good for weakening the argument ?

[goelmohit2002]

But even if the placement program is able to stop even say 10-20 students then wouldn't it be good for weakening the argument ?

Here,again you are assuming that placement pgm is able to stop 10-20 students.
It may have not stopped anyone at all (zero),we dont know!.
You should not go far away from the premise.(you cant assume anything).

Hi Ratheesh,

Thanks.

But then can you please tell how can we assume that recession lead to decrease in people dropping out....

Basically can you please tell why I can not assume that people were stopped from dropping out because of Assistance via placement programme....

but as per the correct answer I can assume that people were stopped from dropping out because of recession....note that recession does not mean zero new employment....so still people could have got new jobs.....

[goelmohit2002]

recession has raised levels of unemployment -> students will certainly have difficulty in finding job even if they wish to,however small that effect may be. (may be very few students have difficulty in finding jobs...but still there is a delta x possibility..- no assumption here)

assistance via placement offices -> nothing still prevents students from finding jobs.(They can if they wish to) and its possible that placement offices may not effect the student wishing to dropout,whereas there this possibility is not there in option a).

Hi Ratheesh,

Thanks.

Can you please elaborate a bit more....I am really not able to understand how placement assistance will not lead to decrease in college dropouts.

If possible then can you please explain with the help of three morally down students say A, B and C and they have two options in front of them
1) job search in current recession.
2) wait till graduation and take the help of placement services.

Can you please tell how and why the behavior of A, B and C will be different in case 1 and case 2 above?

[goelnikhils]

Mohit,
The correct answer is 'A' because what it means is that due to recession lot of students decided to stay back in college for studies as thet anticipated they will not get work.

Thanks
Nikhil

[Ben Ku]

When approaching this kind of question, it's important to identify the conclusion:

the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.


To weaken the conclusion, we need to provide either evidence that goes against the conclusion, or to strike down an assumption made in the argument. In other words, we need to question whether the morale-program was responsible for the reduced dropout rate. Other explanations for the lowering of dropouts would weaken the argument.

a) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city.

This provides an alternate explanation of why the dropout rate might have been lowered: perhaps students did not drop out NOT because their morale improved, but rather because they knew if they did, they would not be able to find work. This weakens the argument.

d) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment.

Having job placement might provide an incentive for students to stay in school. This statement provides an additional explanation for the low dropout rate. However, it does not cast doubt about whether the decrease in dropout rate was due to the morale program. This statement might weaken the argument a little in an indirect fashion, but it's not as clear as (A).

[sam198518]

When approaching this kind of question, it's important to identify the conclusion:

the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.


To weaken the conclusion, we need to provide either evidence that goes against the conclusion, or to strike down an assumption made in the argument. In other words, we need to question whether the morale-program was responsible for the reduced dropout rate. Other explanations for the lowering of dropouts would weaken the argument.

a) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city.

This provides an alternate explanation of why the dropout rate might have been lowered: perhaps students did not drop out NOT because their morale improved, but rather because they knew if they did, they would not be able to find work. This weakens the argument.

d) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment.

Having job placement might provide an incentive for students to stay in school. This statement provides an additional explanation for the low dropout rate. However, it does not cast doubt about whether the decrease in dropout rate was due to the morale program. This statement might weaken the argument a little in an indirect fashion, but it's not as clear as (A).

"Having job placement might provide an incentive for students to stay in school. This statement provides an additional explanation for the low dropout rate. However, it does not cast doubt about whether the decrease in dropout rate was due to the morale program."

Hi Ben,

Both A & D introduces additional explanation; A implies that dropouts might not get job after dropping out while D says students have better chances of getting work after graduation.

Both A & D encourages students not to drop out. I still am not clear why A is preferable over D here?

Could you highlight more on why you called A an alternate explanation while D as additional explanation.

Am I assuming that could have dropped out students would have graduated?

[tim]

A provides an alternative explanation as to why students are not leaving school. Maybe it's not because their morale has improved but because there are no jobs available if they drop out..

This is pretty compelling, and i think if you're honest with yourself you'll agree that A is a much better answer than D. Just because D is somewhat plausible doesn't change the fact that A "most seriously weakens the argument"..