The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad

This question seems to have stumped many because of he positioning of the conclusion. Finding the conclusion of the argument is the most important task, and here the conclusion is - The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy.

Note: The classic conclusion markers, strong tone and strong subjective opinion is found in this line. The last line - the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy - is used to justify the conclusion.

Argument Structure:

PREMISES:

1. Failure to increase Pells Grant or at least limit its reduction.
2. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class.
3. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

CONCLUSION:
The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy .

The question stem asks us to weaken the argument.

Lets look at Choice (E): Not Enough Information: It talks about Federal Spending on education whereas we are interested in improving access to historically disadvantaged sections of the society. We do not know how much of Federal Spending on education will be directed towards improving access to the disadvantaged sections of the society.

Choice (D): Tempting but Trap: On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

The argument states that Pells Grant improves access to higher education. It does not say it fully covers the cost of attending a four-year college or university. May be 15% is enough to improve access to higher education.

Choice (C): Irrelevant: Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
We do not know how it improves or reduces access to higher education.

Choice (B): Tempting but a Trap: The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
A very tempting choice but note the word "neediest". The neediest candidates lack information, and they are likely to be a small number, and the majority may actually benefit from it. So it strengthens the argument rather than weakening it.
The author of the argument is hoping that you will confuse a smaller group (neediest) with the larger group (all students who benefit from Pell's grants).

Choice (A): Correct: Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.

Note the words - “total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.” It uses the same set of words and is a perfect alternative to the Pell Grants. Hence the criticism of the Congress for failing to increase Pell Grants is nullified. This is the right choice!

Hope that helps!

Harish Kumar
Verbal Trainer
Crack Verbal
_________________

The question is testing whether you confuse a subset with the whole set. Are Pell grants the only mechanism used by governments to help the disadvantaged pursue higher education? Or are there other programs? Perhaps the government will cut Pell grants, but fund new, equally effective programs. A) tells us that there are other programs besides Pell grants, and they are receiving increased funding.

That said, I do find the question a bit strange. What is the conclusion, after all? It seems the more important conclusion of the argument is that 'access to higher education for the disadvantaged is required to prevent the gap between rich and poor from widening, and to prevent straining the stability of our democracy'. None of the answer choices addresses this conclusion. There is an implication, of course, that 'cutting Pell grants will make it more difficult for the disadvantaged to pursue higher education', but I don't read that to be the main conclusion of the argument, as presented. Still, that's the conclusion addressed by the answer choices.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The conclusion is that the government has “practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget." The basis for that claim is that Pell grants improve access to higher education, which allows lower-income students to improve their economic standing. The main assumption this argument relies on is that Pell grants are the only means available to lower-income students who wish to access higher education. The correct answer will weaken the conclusion by contradicting this assumption.

(A) CORRECT. If total spending on access to higher education will increase, then the federal government has addressed the issue that the author cites, albeit through means other than Pell grants.

(B) Whether candidates for Pell grants are aware of their eligibility is irrelevant to the claim that the government has practiced bad public policy.

(C) This choice may sound like a counterargument (that Congress is somehow practicing good public policy by authorizing a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities) to the argument presented (that the government is practicing bad public policy by failing to safeguard Pell grants). However, we have no evidence that after-school programs in urban communities help low-income students afford higher education, so this does not weaken the argument presented by the author.

(D) The dollar amount of the Pell grants is irrelevant. To this argument, it matters only that they provide some help at all.

(E) Increased spending on education as a percentage of the total budget does not necessarily imply that low-income students will have better access to higher education. In fact, it does not even imply that education spending (in dollars) will increase.
_________________

My take on why D is the right choice:


The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

Since the question concerns an argument, let us restate the argument in our own words to see which statement below weakens it most:
Premise 1: Pell grant spending has decreased/will not rise
Premise 2: Pell grants improve access to higher education and help poor people elevate themselves to middle class
Conclusion: Without enough Pell grants, the gap between rich and poor will widen and the stability of democracy will decrease.


A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.
This seems correct because it weakens the conclusion a great deal. The conclusion states that the gap will widen without enough Pell grants, because Pell grants improve access to higher ed for disadvantaged students. This statement here says that spending on programs for improving higher ed will INCREASE, which weakens the need for Pell grants, but does not address the conclusion enough. Remember, the conclusion is saying "PELL GRANTS CAN SAVE US", and this doesn't attack the conclusion enough. If option D did not exist I would go for A...

B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
Incorrect in my opinion because there seems to be an issue with a SHORTAGE of Pell grants. Say there were 100 Pell grants issued last year, but a demand for 1000 (think of it like securing a spot at H/S/W ). Lets say next year also 100 Pell grants were issued, but there was demand for 1100. Since grants are usually in low supply and very high demand, I dont think the issue that the neediest candidates don't know enough about it is the biggest problem. Sure, it may be a problem, but the biggest problem is that there are not enough Pell grants available to satisfy demand.

C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
Don't see how this could apply...

D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
Perfectly addresses the conclusion. Pell grants alone cannot decrease the "widening of the gap between the rich and poor in this country" because they only cover 15% of the full cost. How on earth could a poor person so far divided from the rich afford to attend college for 4 years on a measly 15% discount? I was previously sold on A, but now I vote for D.

E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
Incorrect. If the total budget goes down from $1000 to $10 and the % for education goes up from 5% to 90%, we would actually be spending less than last year.

I just googled the question, and found it discussed on two message boards (one was ScoreTop, so I went to the ManhattanGMAT one instead). The OA is indeed A. D cannot be the correct answer here, incidentally. That "Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged" is presented as a factual premise of the argument, not as its conclusion.

I don't much like the question for two reasons:

-the argument has more than one conclusion ("Cutting Pell grants will prevent the disadvantaged from receiving higher education"; "If the disadvantaged don't get access to higher education, the gap between rich and poor will widen"; "If the gap between rich and poor widens, the stability of democracy will be strained").

-since Pell grants and the cost of US education are likely better known to US test-takers than to others, the question invites a different amount of personal input from different test-taking populations. Those who know the expense of US higher education are likely to be more tempted by D than those who do not. One of the purposes of including the many diagnostic questions, the questions which don't count, on real GMATs is to identify whether questions are 'biased'-- that is, whether certain populations answer questions better than other populations do. In the research language, the questions are examined for 'differential impact'. Questions which show significant bias are either rejected or modified. The US and non-US test-taking populations are certainly examined in these differential impact studies; GMAC has published research papers about this.

I got A as well. I think what threw a few people off is not identifying the correct conclusion.

"Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.'

If we look earlier in the argument we see that "access" is to higher education and not Pell grants. Pell grants are just one method of providing access to higher education for the disadvantaged.

So our conclusion is that not providing access to higher education will widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

A says that while we may not be increasing Pell grants (remember just one method of access for the disadvantaged), we are increasing total spending (access) to the disadvantaged.

But guys, I honestly don't like this question and I don't think it's representative of the actual gmat question. The usual answers to the CR questions will NEVER contradict the premise, something that answer choice A did in this question. The weakening or strengthening answers usually address the conclusion or the logical flow of the argument from the premise to the conclusion.

In CR, one should always treat the premise as true. One should only challenge whether the logical flaw from the premise to the conclusion is appropriate. In the weakening question, we could have an extra information that could make the conclusion doubtful...but to pick an answer choice that simply contradicts a premise in the argument is just simply wrong and not the correct way to tackle CR questions!

I agree with all you're saying, except with respect to this particular question- answer choice A does not contradict any of the premises of the argument. The argument says Pell grants are being cut, but nowhere does it mention other government funding for education.

- they did not increase pell grants, more over limiting it next year.
- PG improve access to higher education for needy
- if not this then gap between poor and rich will widen. - conclusion

Flaw with these arguments is - anything that contradict this conclusion, ofcource if they get more PG next year.


A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget. - well a poor will get more benefit by this.
B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants. - means poor will not get PG due to lack of info
C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities. - increasing after school program is not going to help. better give one program but give PG with it.
D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university. - by this they are trying to say that help coming from PG is not significant. poors still need to pay a hefty price.
E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget. - if federal spending will increase then PG should also increase, but i can't say that with certainty, if yes then this will also weaken.

close call between A and E but i will go with A

The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year’s budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Type - weaken

The conclusion is that the government has “practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget." The basis for that claim is that Pell grants improve access to higher education, which allows lower-income students to improve their economic standing. The main assumption this argument relies on is that Pell grants are the only means available to lower-income students who wish to access higher education. The correct answer will weaken the conclusion by contradicting this assumption.
A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget. -CORRECT. If total spending on access to higher education will increase, then the federal government has addressed the issue that the author cites, albeit through means other than Pell grants.
B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants. - Whether candidates for Pell grants are aware of their eligibility is irrelevant to the claim that the government has practiced bad public policy.
C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities. - This choice may sound like a counterargument (that Congress is somehow practicing good public policy by authorizing a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities) to the argument presented (that the government is practicing bad public policy by failing to safeguard Pell grants). However, we have no evidence that after-school programs in urban communities help lowincome students afford higher education, so this does not weaken the argument presented by the author.
D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university. -The dollar amount of the Pell grants is irrelevant. To this argument, it matters only that they provide some help at all.
E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget. - Increased spending on education as a percentage of the total budget does not necessarily imply that low-income students will have better access to higher education. In fact, it does not even imply that education spending (in dollars) will increase.

Answer A
_________________

Though I chose the correct answer, reading the answers of experts such as Ian made me think otherwise. I found the below from MGMAT forum-

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t4492.html

1. It was raining, therefore Tom's shoes got wet.
Here, the word 'therefore' shows causality. There isn't actually any argument here.

2. Tom's shoes are wet, therefore it must have been raining.
Here we have an argument (I'm making a claim and supporting it with evidence).

PROPOSITION A: BECAUSE "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy" THEREFORE "the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen" - This is causality, not an argument.

PROPOSITION B: BECAUSE "the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen" THEREFORE "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy" - Here, the argument is supporting a judgement of the government's policy with a claim about it's consequences.


AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , ChiranjeevSingh, GMATGuruNY , VeritasKarishma , other experts-- please enlighten
_________________

Premises:
The current admin has failed to increase Pell grants.
Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged
Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy. (bad future implication of this policy)

Conclusion: Not increasing (or at least limiting their reduction) Pell grants is bad public policy. (this is the author's purpose of writing this argument)

(A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget.

This option tells us that spending on other programs which give access to higher education is going to increase even if spending on Pell grants is not going to increase. Pell grants is just one of the programs. So the new public policy may not be bad. This weakens the argument.

(B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.

As long as Pell grants reach the needy, the purpose is served. Even if it has some shortcomings, it is irrelevant to our argument.

(C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.

"after school programs" and "access to higher education" are different. Irrelevant.

(D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.

The exact amount of funding offered by Pell grants is irrelevant. You are given in the premises that Pell grants "improve" access to higher education and what will happen without this access. We don't need them to completely cover the costs.

(E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.

Total spending on education is irrelevant. The argument is concerned with "access to higher education" only.

Answer (A)
_________________

Hi Skywalker18!

This is not a case of simple causality. The claim here is that the bad policy will have specific consequences. Those consequences do not necessarily follow from the policy (which is exactly what we are asked to address). So this definitely an argument. The conclusion of the argument is:



That's what we're trying to call into question.

I hope that helps!
-Carolyn
_________________

(A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year’s federal budget. -- Attacks the reasoning that Pell Grants are necessary to reduce the gap b/w rich and poor by highlighting the false dichotomy that its either Pell Grants or increasing gap b/w rich & poor. The answer choice says other targeted programs have increased in next budget and hence the gap b/w rich & poor may not increase.

(B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants. -- Sure the "neediest" candidates may not need the grants but some less needy than the "neediest" may be able to benefit, ultimately causing a reduction in the divide b/w rich and poor. Not really a weakener. Eliminate.

(C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities. -- We are concerned with rich and poor. Urban areas can also have poor or can only have rich folks, hence contributing to the divide and thus strengthening the argument. Eliminate.

(D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university. -- "on average" is the key. It could still benefit a large section of the poor. Eliminate. Strengthens the argument.

(E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget. -- We are not concerned with the overall education budget but only with the Pellet Grants as they seem to be the only option to reduce the rich / poor divide.

does this question come under the category of cause and effect :

''failing to increase Pell grants is causing the gap between the rich and poor in this country''

So, can I weaken this by finding an alternate cause responsible for the same, say, poor people are not aware of the pell grants and that this the reason for the widening gap.

does B] try to say the same?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________