User avatar
 
uhdang
Thanks Received: 25
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 227
Joined: March 05th, 2015
 
 
 

Q2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

by uhdang Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:34 am

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?
"Fun"
User avatar
 
maryadkins
Thanks Received: 641
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: March 23rd, 2011
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

by maryadkins Sun Apr 05, 2015 4:38 pm

Good analysis. I'm not sure I understand your final question but I don't think it's valid to read into "counselors concluded from this report" that they could have concluded it from other reports. Also, to one point you make, generally a correct assumption on the LSAT is not that a report or research done was wrong. That's not really a logical assumption. That's just a problem in method or data. The LSAT is going to be more focused on logical gaps in argumentation.
 
donghai819
Thanks Received: 7
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 65
Joined: September 25th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

by donghai819 Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:46 pm

Well, the "many" in E doesn't make much sense to me. If we negate E, we would have: Many of last year's graduate who went on to college did not do so in order to prepare for careers requiring college degrees. I can't see why it would be the necessary assumption here.. It would be much better if we have: at least some of last... Wait, the negations of "some" and "many" are "none", aren't they? Ok, I guess I just left my thoughts here so folks who have same concerns could figure it out.
 
seychelles1718
Thanks Received: 0
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 136
Joined: November 01st, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

by seychelles1718 Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:16 am

Isn't choosing a career that requires a college degree a part of career plan? I don't really see how E is better than D. If we negate D, it would be: "MORE OR EQUAL # of graduates go on to college without career plans." If MORE or EQUAL number of graduates go to colleges without career plans, how can counselors conclude that their program that convinces students to pick careers that require college degrees has been SUCCESSFUL?
User avatar
 
maryadkins
Thanks Received: 641
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: March 23rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

by maryadkins Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:02 am

If more (or the same) number of students are going to college without career plans, that doesn't necessarily mean this program hasn't worked. It just means there are as many kids going to college without a career plan. But there can still be, in addition to those kids, OTHER kids who are going WITH a career plan! Which would mean the program is working.

We don't care if there are ALSO kids going to college without career plans, but we do want at least some of the kids who are going to college to have a career in mind, otherwise we can't conclude that the program is why they are going.
 
JohnZ880
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 25
Joined: August 28th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

by JohnZ880 Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:19 pm

Not entirely sure why answer E is better than answer D. If "many of last year's graduates who went on to college " did NOT do so "in order to prepare for careers requiring college degrees," then why can't we still draw the conclusion that the nationwide program is working? Maybe before the program, 10+ years ago, the majority who went on to college did so without any thought of their career plans and now the program is bolstering enrollment by making people think they are better served attending college. So say only 5 percent of kids went to college with specific career plans 10 years ago and now 25 percent go with career plans, accounting for some of the 15 percent increase. Can we not classify 5 percent of all college enrollees as "many" and, conversely, can we not also classify 25 percent as "not many" (relative to 75 percent)? Using "many" really threw me off.

On the other hand, D seems to perfectly connect the premise and conclusion. Now, at the same time that we are seeing more kids go to college we are seeing less kids go to college without career plans (meaning they must have career plans). Therefore, program is working.

Edit: I see why D is not necessary. There could be more kids without a career plan going to college, but that's not relevant. Still don't understand how E is necessary.
 
YiX773
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 18
Joined: September 19th, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

by YiX773 Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:10 pm

I think (C) is not a Weakener. It is just consistent with (not contradicted to) the argument.

Let's change (C) into: At least one (i.e. Some) of the graduates who went on to college received guidance from a high school counselor. And that is an assumption the argument needs.

So we need "Some received guidance" and (C) gave us "Some didn't receive guidance". Well, they are just compatible with each other.

As for (D), "There has been a decrease in the number of graduates who go on to college without career plans" doesn't mean that there are more graduates go on to college WITH career plans (which is something like an assumption we need. Acutually, I think what we really need is an assumption with percentage, not numbers). It could be that there are less or equal number of graduates go on to college with career plans. If that is the case, the argument would be weakened.

So, (D) is something that could strengthen or weaken or have nothing to do with the argument, which is just what an irrelevant matter means (due to it's uncertainty).