Q15 - The cost of a semester's tuition

[ginsburgb]

Can you explain how D helps to resolve the discrepancy? If the scholarships are renewed for students who maintain a high GPA, they wouldn't have to worry about tuition increases since they aren't paying for tuition. Or is it because we don't know what the scholarships cover? Maybe it is just books? Or housing? Or is it because the scholarships only impact a subset (students with high GPAs).

Thanks for your help on this one!

[bbirdwell]

Pinpoint the discrepancy first. Here, it's essentially that some students could afford tuition when they first enrolled, but now they can't.

(D) provides a potential means for explaining this -- some students got scholarships when they were newly enrolled, and then, if they didn't maintain high GPAs, those scholarships were revoked. This parallels the "could afford it at first, now can't" dilemma.

Again, (D) is not a comprehensive, lock-tight explanation, but it helps, because it's reasonable to think that not all students will maintain high GPAs.

Notice how (A) doesn't come anywhere close. It doesn't matter how much other expenses at the university have risen, because the actual cost of tuition has not risen.

[oharvard]

Hi,

My answer sheet for this, as well as the Kaplan guide for preptest 45, both state the correct answer to be (A), not (D). Are you sure it's (D)?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

I did not say the correct answer was (D). The correct answer is definitely (A), and that's because this is an EXCEPT question, meaning the correct answer is the one that does not resolve the discrepancy. So, since it's the one that's "nowhere close," in this case it's actually the answer we want.

[austindyoung]

Darn- Well, I got this one incorrect. Chose (D).

Bbirdwell: thank you for the explanation. It completely makes sense. I see why (D) could be an explanation- and that (A) is faulty because it requires us to make an unwarranted assumption: that an increase the salaries of teacher requires an increase in the tuition of the students. But, as the stimulus states, tuition is based on the quantity of courses taken- and the cost per course has been static.

I just have a quick question (for anyone). Does the argument require the assumption that because X is based on Y then X is only based on Y?

Or, in LSAT-speak should it be apparent that based=only?

If this is not the case, then one could still retain the same amount of classes all 4 years and tuition could still increase. Right?

[soyeonjeon]

I still don't understand how A is the answer and not B.
I chose D at first.
Isn't faculty salaries included in the tuition fee whereby increases of salaries would increase the cost of tuition thus resolve the discrepancy? (while cost of course stayed constant).

Also, if A does not resolve the discrepancy because salaries are not related to tuition fees, then how could C resolve the discrepancy? I think that the living expense is not any more related to tuition than is the faculty salaries.

The only hint I can get from A would be "slightly," since slight increase is unlikely to make most students unable to afford the cost.

Thanks.

[tommywallach]

Hey Soyeon,

Given that you were intrigued by B, C, and D, looks like we need to talk out each answer choice at length.

(A) CORRECT. We already know that the cost per course has not risen. So even if faculty salaries have gone up, this isn't reflecting in the tuition itself, so this has no effect on the discrepancy.

(B) is very straightforward. We know that the cost per course has stayed the same. But if you have to take more courses, your overall tuition IS going up.

(C) I see why this confuses you, but it's actually VERY different from (A). The discrepancy here is that students can no longer afford tuition (not that tuition has gone up). Answer choice (A) is irrelevant because we already know that tuition has NOT gone up (we would usually expect an increase in faculty salary to result in an increase in tuition costs, to cover it).

This is relevant because it explains why students can no longer afford tuition. They have less money in their bank accounts because the cost of living has gone up. Remember, "vicinity" (meaning "near or surrounding") is a helpful word, because most people live in the vicinity of their college, even if that's a few miles out.

(D) makes two errors. First, it makes the same error as (A). We already know tuition per class has not gone up, so it doesn't matter what the university gives to students. However, (D) also makes another mistake. It doesn't represent a change. In answer choice (A), we know the salaries have gone up over the last four years, so if this did have an effect on tuition (which we know it didn't), it might explain why students can no longer afford tuition. But (D) explains a constant condition, which is not helpful.

(E) is similar to (C), because it affects the bottom-line bank accounts of students. If there are fewer jobs that used to go "generally" to students, then fewer students are finding work, resulting in less money for paying the tuition.

Hope that helps!

-t

[mornincounselor]

P: Tuition is based on the courses a student takes.
P: The per-course cost hasn't changed in at least 4 years.
P: Yet, SOME students claim they could previously afford it but they can't now.

(A) and (.C) are the closest imo. One could look at C and think that since the argument is about the costs of tuition then the other costs, like housing, is irrelevant. However, if the costs of housing is increased and the student's income is unchanged then that extra housing money could make tuition not affordable for the student.

Meanwhile with (A) how the ratio of faculty pay to other parts of tuition changes is irrelevant to the student as long as the total cost remains unchanged.