CR: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

What is the reasoning of this CR???
OA is B

In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia's government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
D. Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.
E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded

[sunny.jain]

Conclusion here: Any further recession will not reduce AVAILABILITY of TEACHING JOB.

Why?
because of legal requirement : free school to ALL V CHILDREN ( gov funded) + S-T ration will not exceed.


So, How the Availbilty of Teaching job is related to Facts given.
By S-T ratio, the avilability of Teaching job can be reduced only if no of student reduced.

Option A): Always remember, GMAT alway try to confuse you by giving differnt time period data. If in the main passage we are not talking about differnt time
period then Why do we need now? A is irrelvant.

Option B) : 25% children have attended private school recently, so this give us a probability that these children may attend gov-funded school, so instead of decrease, they will help to increase the number of student. so it strength the argument.

Option C): Saying what is number of teachers now as compare to previous recession. ( are we talking about two economic recession or something like that) ??

Option D): This give us why a teacher should join Gov funded school.

Option E): Again last economic recession, this is Irrelevant.

If you see, only OPtion B and D are talking in same time period as of main passage. D is talking in some other direction. So clearly B is answer here.

[RonPurewal]

sunny's explanation is good.

i'll get to the main point:

you see the following words:
and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

this means that, if you add more students, you HAVE to add more teachers. if you don't get rid of students, you CAN'T get rid of teachers.

therefore, any choice that implies that you won't lose students, or you'll even gain students, will be a HUGE strengthener.

this is what (b) does. it strongly suggests that the public schools will see an influx of students who used to attend private school but can't afford it anymore.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia's government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
D. Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.
E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded[/quote]

[eybrj2]

sunny's explanation is good.

i'll get to the main point:

you see the following words:
and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

this means that, if you add more students, you HAVE to add more teachers. if you don't get rid of students, you CAN'T get rid of teachers.

therefore, any choice that implies that you won't lose students, or you'll even gain students, will be a HUGE strengthener.

this is what (b) does. it strongly suggests that the public schools will see an influx of students who used to attend private school but can't afford it anymore.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia's government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
D. Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.
E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded

[/quote]

I got your reasioning, but I am still confused a little bit.

B just states the fact that when the economy is strong, almost 25 percent students go to private school.
I think that with only the fact above, we don't know whether those students go to goverment-funded school when the economy is bad.
We could guess, but cannot be sure.
I'd like to know the logic in more details.

Also, I picked C although I doubted when I picked it.
Could you explain what is wrong with C?

[RonPurewal]

B just states the fact that when the economy is strong, almost 25 percent students go to private school.
I think that with only the fact above, we don't know whether those students go to goverment-funded school when the economy is bad.
We could guess, but cannot be sure.

this is actually the whole point of these problems -- you have to infer the MOST LIKELY or MOST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION of the given facts.
on these problems, you can't adopt an overly mechanical attitude of "what can i absolutely prove, from the standpoint of formal logic?" if that is your approach, then you are going to be in big trouble.

this is actually why the gmat test writers put these problems on the test: they are specifically designed so that test takers who "have to know the logic ... in detail" will get them wrong.

the point in that answer choice is that all signs are pointing in the same direction.
there's definitely a way in which they want you to interpret the "substantial fees" comment -- namely, if the economy goes south, (at least some) people won't be able to afford those fees anymore.
can you figure this out with formal logic?
no.
can you figure it out by using regular real-world thinking?
yes.
that's the point.

Could you explain what is wrong with C?

(c) is irrelevant because the new legislation is based on current ratios. thus, all that really matters is the current numbers of students and teachers, not the historical numbers from x number of years ago.

[shankar245]

this is actually the whole point of these problems -- you have to infer the MOST LIKELY or MOST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION of the given facts.
on these problems, you can't adopt an overly mechanical attitude of "what can i absolutely prove, from the standpoint of formal logic?" if that is your approach, then you are going to be in big trouble.

Hi Ron ,

I completely agree with the intention of the gmat and I can see the whole purpose of this exam in this CR question.

Here is what I think :

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

this is what (b) does. it strongly suggests that the public schools will see an influx of students who used to attend private school but can't afford it anymore.

So you are saying that even if the 25% rich kids are who pay more than others do not opt to join the government schools, the student - teacher ratio is going to be the same.

On the other hand if they decide to join it is going to increase the number of students and ultimately increase the number of teachers to maintain the student teacher ratio.

So our answer B , basically covers two aspects
1) it makes sure that even if no student joins the govt schools, it does no harm to the student- teacher ratio.
2) If they do opt to join, it increases the ratio.

Either ways teachers do not lose their jobs.


So Ron,
Please let me know if my reasoning ok, or it needs a tweak?

[jlucero]

Shankar,

Your logic and use of two possible scenarios is spot on.

[divineacclivity]

Hi Ron,

I picked A for the following reason. Could you please help me throw A out?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
--> Since the current ratio is higher than the one during last recession & since the ratio has to stay & there's no mention of kids leaving school; also, any future recession wouldn't make the children leave school since there's no fee, so, this (higher than usual) ratio & the number of teachers would continue.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
--> I threw this one out reasoning: People, inspite of having a free-school facility, like to send their children to private schools for some reason, so, this statement in itself is weakening the argument because parents might pull their children out from government-funded schools to private schools in the times of strong economy.
Hmm, as I write my reasons, I think I get your point Ron. So, I can not chuck out option B. Even if parents like sending their children to private schools & they might just pull out their children during strong economy, the number would never go lower during weak economy than that during strong economy. During the recession times, the number of students in government funded school would at the least remain the same during the recession times unless parents start to pull them out of school for making them work & earn rather than letting them study.

Oh, damn confused I am right now. Please help align my thoughts with the exam kinda rules, Ron. Thank you v much in advance.

One more thing Ron. A: Student-teacher ratio is higher than before, does that also mean teachers are relatively lesser now, since it says student-teacher ratio and not teacher-student ratio? Does that have any impact on the argument?

this is actually the whole point of these problems -- you have to infer the MOST LIKELY or MOST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION of the given facts.
on these problems, you can't adopt an overly mechanical attitude of "what can i absolutely prove, from the standpoint of formal logic?" if that is your approach, then you are going to be in big trouble.

Hi Ron ,

I completely agree with the intention of the gmat and I can see the whole purpose of this exam in this CR question.

Here is what I think :

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

this is what (b) does. it strongly suggests that the public schools will see an influx of students who used to attend private school but can't afford it anymore.

So you are saying that even if the 25% rich kids are who pay more than others do not opt to join the government schools, the student - teacher ratio is going to be the same.

On the other hand if they decide to join it is going to increase the number of students and ultimately increase the number of teachers to maintain the student teacher ratio.

So our answer B , basically covers two aspects
1) it makes sure that even if no student joins the govt schools, it does no harm to the student- teacher ratio.
2) If they do opt to join, it increases the ratio.

Either ways teachers do not lose their jobs.


So Ron,
Please let me know if my reasoning ok, or it needs a tweak?

[RonPurewal]

The new law says that the student/teacher ratio can't increase.
Therefore:

"- High student/teacher ratios are not a problem at all.
In fact, if the ratio is at the maximum value and more students join, then more teachers will be needed.

"- If student/teacher ratios are lower, THEN teachers might lose their jobs without a violation of the cited law.

So:
An answer choice that suggests that ratios might increase"”or WON'T decrease"”will strengthen the argument.

Choice A suggests that the ratio is already abnormally high for a recession. Therefore, in choice A, the ratio is more likely to decrease than to increase further.
(Analogy: If you know that it's unusually hot for a June day today, then the weather is much more likely to cool off than to get even hotter!)

Choice B suggests that there will be a significant influx of (former) private-school students when the economy goes sour"”essentially guaranteeing that the ratio won't decrease.

[divineacclivity]

The new law says that the student/teacher ratio can't increase.
Therefore:

"- High student/teacher ratios are not a problem at all.
In fact, if the ratio is at the maximum value and more students join, then more teachers will be needed.

"- If student/teacher ratios are lower, THEN teachers might lose their jobs without a violation of the cited law.

So:
An answer choice that suggests that ratios might increase"”or WON'T decrease"”will strengthen the argument.

Choice A suggests that the ratio is already abnormally high for a recession. Therefore, in choice A, the ratio is more likely to decrease than to increase further.
(Analogy: If you know that it's unusually hot for a June day today, then the weather is much more likely to cool off than to get even hotter!)

Choice B suggests that there will be a significant influx of (former) private-school students when the economy goes sour"”essentially guaranteeing that the ratio won't decrease.

I think I get it. Thank you, Ron.

[RonPurewal]

Excellent.

[harika.apu]

The new law says that the student/teacher ratio can't increase.
Therefore:

"- High student/teacher ratios are not a problem at all.
In fact, if the ratio is at the maximum value and more students join, then more teachers will be needed.

"- If student/teacher ratios are lower, THEN teachers might lose their jobs without a violation of the cited law.

So:
An answer choice that suggests that ratios might increase"”or WON'T decrease"”will strengthen the argument.

Choice A suggests that the ratio is already abnormally high for a recession. Therefore, in choice A, the ratio is more likely to decrease than to increase further.
(Analogy: If you know that it's unusually hot for a June day today, then the weather is much more likely to cool off than to get even hotter!)

Choice B suggests that there will be a significant influx of (former) private-school students when the economy goes sour"”essentially guaranteeing that the ratio won't decrease.

Hello Ron ,
I could not understand why option D is wrong.
It seems that irrespective of economy status , because teachers are paid more they stay .
But it is possible that even these teachers can be removed in times of recession.
Another doubt - it is mentioned that student-teacher ratio cannot be exceeded , can it be decreased ?.

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

But it is possible that even these teachers can be removed in times of recession.

no. not possible.
this exact thing is explicitly prohibited by the law, which mandates that "current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded".
if any teachers were 'removed'—even just one!—then the student/teacher ratio would increase. that's against the law.

if you didn't realize this, WHY did you think the passage mentions the 'student/teacher ratio' aspect of the law? remember, CR problems do not 'trick' you with useless information.

[RonPurewal]

Another doubt - it is mentioned that student-teacher ratio cannot be exceeded , can it be decreased ?

well, sure it can. (it's not allowed to increase—and of course it would be mathematically impossible to mandate that it stay exactly the same at all times!—so, logically, decreases must be allowed.)

...but decreasing the ratio would mean hiring MORE teachers, so i don't think this will go where you're trying to take it.

[RichaChampion]

sunny's explanation is good.

i'll get to the main point:

you see the following words:
and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

this means that, if you add more students, you HAVE to add more teachers. if you don't get rid of students, you CAN'T get rid of teachers.

therefore, any choice that implies that you won't lose students, or you'll even gain students, will be a HUGE strengthener.

this is what (b) does. it strongly suggests that the public schools will see an influx of students who used to attend private school but can't afford it anymore.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia's government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia's government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
D. Teachers in Vargonia's government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.
E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded

I fumbled at this question and I didn't choose B because I didn't read the following statement with attention -
"However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools."

I misinterpreted that total # of Jobs will be more across the city/country during the time of recession However the questions is dealing only with the Jobs at Government funded schools.

Additionally "Option C" I know is not a strengthener, but is it a potential weakener? Is my understanding Correct.

because "Option C" says that nearly 20% more teachers are employed then were employed during last recession. This can be also viewed as that their ar more students now then were at the times of recession. In short # of students during recessions were less in government funded schools then in non recession time. This weakens the conclusion since less # of students at the time of recessions means that their will be possibility that teachers may be fired then.

S/T < = A fixed Numerical Value (S/T Ratio can't exceed this value.)