Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions - - Question 26

School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district...

TheFacu June 11, 2015

Explain

Please explain a-e

Reply
Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Naz June 12, 2015

Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.

Conclusion: "parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option"

Why? We are told that until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. But, the school superintendent is replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighborhood of the school to attend.

So, what's the issue here? Well, the school superintendent believes she has fixed the issue of entry being restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition, by changing the requirement to be that only children who live in the neighborhood of the school can attend. However, we know nothing about the neighborhood of the school. What if it is a very affluent neighborhood and still only the children of rich people can attend? Then the superintendent has not changed anything.

Does answer choice (B) strengthen? Yes.

Answer choice (B) tells us that people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighborhood of the school. Thus, the superintendent's conclusion was right, and she was able to open up attendance at the school to more than just the children of the very wealthy.

Does the negation of answer choice (B) make the argument fall apart? Yes.

If people who couldn't pay the old tuition cannot afford to live in the area that the school is located, then the school superintendent's conclusion no longer stands, since she has not opened up attendance to more than just those who could afford the old tuition.

If you have any specific questions on any of the other answer choices, please feel free to clarify.

Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.