According to a recent research study, more than...

[renukaagarwal83]

Re-posting, following the guidelines!

GMAT Team -

I don't understand the answer choice to this "Weaken the Argument" question. The question is below:

"According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?

A. Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement.
B. While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county.
C. In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education.
D. In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges.
E. Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges."

The correct answer is E. The assumption is that students who attend private schools are more likely to attend college than students who attend public schools. The explanation says that "it is assumed that public schools are inferior to private schools as a training ground to college" and that "since the conclusion centers on the likelihood of attending college, economic and financial considerations are outside the scope of the argument."

I don't agree with this answer. The question is looking for you to weaken the likelihood of someone attending college from private school vs. public school; it does not make any clam that this difference in likelihood is specifically due to academic quality. Why, then, can the answer not be grounded in economic reasons that would make attending college from public school more likely than attending college from private school? I chose answer choice C, discussing financial aid.

Please advise - thank you!

[RonPurewal]

The passage is about whether individual families should move their children from public schools to private schools.

"Need-based" financial aid is based on the individual family's income and ability to pay.
If a family moves their child from one school to another, the family's income (and hence "need") doesn't change. So, that issue is irrelevant to the decision.

(In other words, choice C just indicates that public schools have more children from lower-income families than private schools do. This isn't going to change anything about a family that happens to move a child from one school to another.)

[neetub951]

Conclusion : to increase the likelihood that children will attend college, parents should send them to private instead of public school.
Any argument which makes a point that this is not the case (Public school also does something that increases likelihood) would weaken the conclusion.

OA E states a reason that, you know, this is not because children are studying in public school but because their own choice they prefer to go in farming. But this doesn't weaken the conclusion because it is still true. Conclusion is still there that - to increase the likelihood that children will attend college, parents should send them to private instead of public school.


But D weakens it by saying no public school more opportunity in sports so it is not because of public school that it is 65% but it is because of some other factor.

@ron :