The current administration and Congress have once again

[Guest]

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]

.

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

I think you mean the former, not the latter? The conclusion is that current admin has practiced bad policy.

The logic of the argument is:
1. Current admin has weakened pell grants
2. Pell grants provide access to higher ed for disadvantaged
3. Access to higher ed is nec to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is nec to make democracy stable
5. Therefore, admin has practiced bad policy

I can see why B would definitely be tempting. But it is not as good an answer as A. We are told as fact that "Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances" (stmnt 2 above). So even if the neediest often lack information (as in B), we can still presume that enough people use the grants to make a difference. There is nothing inconsistent about those facts. Therefore, this doesn't weaken the conclusion too seriously.

Choice A weakens it badly. Choice A gives us an alternate route to 3. Once we accept A as true, it no longer matters whether the Pell grants have decreased. The only problem with reducing Pell grants (decreased access to higher ed) is no longer a problem, since access to higher ed will be better funded, not more poorly funded.

[rajiv.del]

Thanks

[jnelson0612]

:-)

[pawar.abhishek]

.

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

I think you mean the former, not the latter? The conclusion is that current admin has practiced bad policy.

The logic of the argument is:
1. Current admin has weakened pell grants
2. Pell grants provide access to higher ed for disadvantaged
3. Access to higher ed is nec to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is nec to make democracy stable
5. Therefore, admin has practiced bad policy

I can see why B would definitely be tempting. But it is not as good an answer as A. We are told as fact that "Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances" (stmnt 2 above). So even if the neediest often lack information (as in B), we can still presume that enough people use the grants to make a difference. There is nothing inconsistent about those facts. Therefore, this doesn't weaken the conclusion too seriously.

Choice A weakens it badly. Choice A gives us an alternate route to 3. Once we accept A as true, it no longer matters whether the Pell grants have decreased. The only problem with reducing Pell grants (decreased access to higher ed) is no longer a problem, since access to higher ed will be better funded, not more poorly funded.

Could you please elaborate D?

How could D be wrong? The conclusion is that since Pell grants dont amount to enough, the gap between rich and poor might increase.
D proves that Pell grants amounts to a very small amount compared to what requires to finish college.

[jnelson0612]

Could you please elaborate D?

How could D be wrong? The conclusion is that since Pell grants dont amount to enough, the gap between rich and poor might increase.
D proves that Pell grants amounts to a very small amount compared to what requires to finish college.

I have a couple of thoughts here. The argument says that "Pell grants improve access to higher education" . . . Note how the argument is carefully worded: "improving" access to higher education may very well just mean covering 15% of the cost of going to college. Even 15% would help!

The other issue is whether D weakens more strongly than A does. Let's first make sure that the correct conclusion is identified, so you can see which one weakens the conclusion. Check out the way Jonathan dissects the argument above. To quote him:

"Conclusion: The current admin has practiced bad policy.

The logic of the argument is:
1. Current admin has weakened pell grants
2. Pell grants provide access to higher ed for disadvantaged
3. Access to higher ed is nec to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is nec to make democracy stable
5. Therefore, admin has practiced bad policy"

If:
A) They have actually given more overall money to programs helping the poor, then have they really practiced bad policy by cutting Pell grants? No, because they are still helping the poor go to college. This really weakens the idea that the administration is doing something bad.

D) Pells only provide 15% of costs at most . . . . does that really weaken the idea that the administration has practiced bad policy? Sure, the Pell grants may not be making a huge difference, but does that really let the administration of the hook? Compare this to A to see which one more strongly argues against the idea that the administration has done something bad to the poor.

Hope this helps!

[anniee624]

Could you please elaborate D?

How could D be wrong? The conclusion is that since Pell grants dont amount to enough, the gap between rich and poor might increase.
D proves that Pell grants amounts to a very small amount compared to what requires to finish college.

I have a couple of thoughts here. The argument says that "Pell grants improve access to higher education" . . . Note how the argument is carefully worded: "improving" access to higher education may very well just mean covering 15% of the cost of going to college. Even 15% would help!

The other issue is whether D weakens more strongly than A does. Let's first make sure that the correct conclusion is identified, so you can see which one weakens the conclusion. Check out the way Jonathan dissects the argument above. To quote him:

"Conclusion: The current admin has practiced bad policy.

The logic of the argument is:
1. Current admin has weakened pell grants
2. Pell grants provide access to higher ed for disadvantaged
3. Access to higher ed is nec to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is nec to make democracy stable
5. Therefore, admin has practiced bad policy"

If:
A) They have actually given more overall money to programs helping the poor, then have they really practiced bad policy by cutting Pell grants? No, because they are still helping the poor go to college. This really weakens the idea that the administration is doing something bad.

D) Pells only provide 15% of costs at most . . . . does that really weaken the idea that the administration has practiced bad policy? Sure, the Pell grants may not be making a huge difference, but does that really let the administration of the hook? Compare this to A to see which one more strongly argues against the idea that the administration has done something bad to the poor.

Hope this helps!

Hello Jamie!
I have a question about the conclusion too.

The conclusion is WITHOUT A , B WILL HAPPEN, then when choosing the answer that weaken the conclusion, which kind of the following answer should I choose? 1. WITHOUT A, B WON´T HAPPEN. 2. EVEN WITH A, B STILL WILL HAPPEN.

If I can choose the answer of the logic 2 ( even with A, B still will happen), then D can be considered. Because D says that the Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university, which means the Pell grant doesn´t help that much, so even with the Pell grant (even A happens) , its impact is so small that the gap between the rich and poor in this country will still continue to widen ( the B will still happen)

Thank you for answering me!!

[RaffaeleM39]

The conclusion is that current admin has practiced bad policy.

The logic of the argument is:
1. Current admin has weakened pell grants
2. Pell grants provide access to higher ed for disadvantaged
3. Access to higher ed is nec to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is nec to make democracy stable
5. Therefore, admin has practiced bad policy

Hi instrutctors,
After reading the exaplanation of "jwinawer", I still have doubts in identifying the conclusion.
There are two possible conclusions here: "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy" or "Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy. "

To identify the conclusion, we can use the "Therefore" test:

PROPOSITION A: BECAUSE "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy" THEREFORE "the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen"

PROPOSITION B: BECAUSE "the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen" THEREFORE "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy"

For me proposition A makes much sense then B, thus identifying the conclusion in "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy"

What is wrong with my reasoning? I selected B (OA is A) after misidentifying the conclusion.

Thanks

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Thanks for writing your reasoning out so clearly. The 'therefore test' hasn't worked out for you here because there's a confusion between causality and logical deduction. Take the following example:

It was raining, therefore Tom's shoes got wet.
Here, the word 'therefore' shows causality. There isn't actually any argument here.
Tom's shoes are wet, therefore it must have been raining.
Here we have an argument (I'm making a claim and supporting it with evidence).

PROPOSITION A: BECAUSE "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy" THEREFORE "the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen"

This is causality, not an argument.

PROPOSITION B: BECAUSE "the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen" THEREFORE "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy"

Here, the argument is supporting a judgement of the government's policy with a claim about it's consequences.

If that is still confusing for you, then no worries. Noticing your error with B is more important and probably easier. I think you may have exaggerated answer B to mean 'Pell grants don't really work'. It actually just says 'Pell grants aren't perfect (but they could still work pretty well!)'. That's a trap that you're going to see on lots of problems. As long as you see this, then getting the conclusion mixed up probably doesn't matter too much in this problem.