The school superintendent says that up until now, enrollment in the best high school was restricted to families who could afford to pay the tuition. They are replacing the tuition with a new requirement that only those who live in the neighborhood will be able to attend. They believe that this change will give parents who couldn’t afford the tuition the option to send their children to this school.
The claim about what effect this change in policy will have relies upon an assumption. The question stem asks you to choose the answer that identifies this assumption.
Answer B is correct because it says that in order to be true, there would need to be families living in the school’s neighborhood who could not afford to pay the tuition payment. If the school was in a wealthy neighborhood where all of the families could already afford tuition, the new neighborhood requirement would have not have the effect the superintendent claims it will have.
Answer C says that in order for the claim to be true, people less wealthy than those who could afford to pay tuition are the majority in the district. In order to be true, the less wealthy families do not need to be the majority. If just one poor family lived in the school’s neighborhood and were able to enroll their child in the school after the policy change, the superintendent’s claim would be true. Therefore, the argument does not rely on the assumption that less wealthy families must make up the majority of the school’s neighborhood.
Note too that this answer changes a key term from the argument (“neighborhoodâ€) with another (“districtâ€). While these terms are nearly synonymous when talking about enrollment in schools, they do have slightly different meanings. Be suspicious of answers that do not match the terminology used in the passage’s argument and instead introduce new terms. This is sometimes a clue that these answers are the wrong choice.
Julie-VJuly 22, 2019
I was stuck between choices (B) and (C) but ultimately chose the latter. The phrase "are ABLE to live in the neighborhood of the school" made me hesitant to choose (B), maybe because it sounded as if it was an after effect of the change from tuition to location. After reading the discussion, I see that focusing on "neighborhood" vs. "district" could have helped me eliminate (C), but that one part from (B) still confused me. If someone could clarify why the wording for B works in favor for this question, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you in advance!
RaviJuly 22, 2019
@Julie-V,
Happy to help. Let's look at (B).
(B) says, "people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighborhood of the school"
This is a strengthen with a necessary premise question, so let's use the negation test to see if (B) is necessary. If (B)'s negation makes the argument fall apart, then we know that (B) in its original form is essential for the argument.
(B)'s negation is, "people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are not able to live in the neighborhood of the school"
If people who previously could not afford the tuition do not live in the neighborhood, then they still will not be able to send their kids to the school, and the superintendent's conclusion would be false. Thus, they must either live in or be able to live in the school district. This is why (B) is necessary for the argument.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
