Pretty tough question for #2 in my opinion.
This is a Necessary Assumption question.
And here is the core:
Aggressive program to convince high school students to select careers requiring college degrees by guidance counselor for the past 13 years. + government reported that 15 percent greater than 10 yrs ago of going to the college.
==>
the counselors concluded that the program had been successful
@ Assumption analysis
1) We are assuming government report to be right. Maybe their report is wrong. What if they made a calculation mistake and they simple did not count some of the low-college attending states into the report?
2) Author assumes that greater percentage of college enrollment as a sign of the program being successful. The aggressive program’s aim is to encourage students to select careers requiring college degree, not encourage them to go to college more. There is a missing gap to be filled in. What if this higher percentage is because of some other cause? Maybe a college tuition for the past 13 years has been decreasing? A potential right answer choice would direct “encouraging career with college degree” to higher enrollment.
Now, Let's get into the Answer choices.
A) This is a classic “number-percentage” trick. Higher percentage could still mean less number of students attending. Maybe the whole student population has substantially decreased, so smaller number of college attending indicated larger percentage?
B) We are concerned with whether higher percentage correctly indicates the success of the program or not. We are not talking about what courses are helpful for career prospects. This might strengthen a validity of the aggressive program that counselors were pursuing, it does no more than premise booster since it is not on the right scope.
C) This would weaken the conclusion. If the large percentage of that increased college enrollment was not the result of the guidance, then the conclusion has little credibility.
D) Seems like small graduates without career plan is due to guidance counselors’ work, but this has open possibilities. Maybe an economy has been getting worse and having career plans as a success strategy has been a popular trend for the past 13 years. This is not on the right scope enough to be considered as necessary. To verify it, let’s try negating it. “There hasn’t been a decrease in the number of graduates who go on to college without career plans” - More or equal graduates have career plans. Going to college with having career plans has nothing to do with increased percentage of enrollment. No effect on conclusion of the program being successful or not.
E) This directly connects intended outcome of the aggressive program to increased enrollment. To verify the answer, let’s try negating it - Many of last year’s graduates who went on to college did NOT do so in order to prepare for careers requiring college degrees. This opens up other reasons why there has been more college enrollment, thereby weakens the conclusion. This is the Answer!
While analyzing the assumption, one question came up. Could it be that there is a possible assumption in “the counselors concluded” part in conclusion? Maybe the counselors were concluding the program’s success from other report? Is this a valid assumption analysis?