A rise in the percentage of all

Answer choices

1. A

   Relative vs. Absolute8% picked this

   A larger number of 18-year-old high school graduates were recruited for the republic’s armed services in

   This has unclear impact, because it's talking about number whereas the argument is all about percents, so the raw number isn't important. It's possible that the population overall is growing in number, so there are more graduates, more dropouts, more recruits no matter what. The author is specifically trying to figure out why a bigger share of 18-year-olds was recruited in 1986 than in 1980. This answer might otherwise be tempting, since it sounds like more and more high school graduates are being recruited, whereas the author is trying to explain the uptick in recruits by pointing towards dropouts being recruited.

   8%
2. B

   Weaker Impact19% picked this

   Many of the high-technology systems used by the republic’s armed services can be operated only by individuals who have

   This does weaken somewhat, by attacking the plausibility of the idea that the army is chasing after high school dropouts as potential recruits. This answer pushes back, like, "Why would they want dropouts? Many high-tech systems in the army require a high school education". That definitely has some impact, but it's watered down by the strength of many, and by the fact that operating high-tech systems might be a really atypical job in the military. In other words, this answer is saying, "There are at least a handful of high-tech systems that require high school graduates to operate them". That definitely convinces us that the entire armed services can't be made up of dropouts. But it still leaves room for 99% of service members to be dropouts since we might only need about 100 high school graduates to operate these specific high-tech systems.

   19%
3. C

   Correct64% picked this

   Between 1980 and 1986 the percentage of high school graduates among 18-year-olds recruited in the

   Why this is right

   This offers an Alternate Explanation for the Curious Fact, which is the #1 thing that correct answers do when we're weakening an Explain Curious Fact style argument. The author is wondering what accounts for the rising % of 18-year-olds recruited by the armed services. Let's assign a couple numbers to this change in recruitment rate, just to ground this in something specific. 1980 1986 % of 18-year- 20% 30% old recruited During the same time, there was a change in the dropout rate. 1980 1986 % of 18-year-olds 5% 10% who dropped out The author assumes these two statistics are related, and that the armed services recruited a bigger share of 18-year-olds because there was a bigger share of 18-year-olds that were dropouts. This answer offers an alternate explanation. It tells us that from 1980 - 1986 the % of high school graduates being recruited rose sharply. Maybe in 1980, only 15% of high school grads were recruited, and now in 1986 it's more like 35% of high school grads are recruited. That big increase in the share of 18-year-old graduates being recruited could explain why a bigger share of 18-year-olds were recruited. (Naturally, it could also be true that a bigger share of dropouts were recruited, and the uptick in recruiting grads and dropouts may have combined to account for the rising share of 18-year-olds that were recruited). But that doesn't change the weakening effect. An Alternate Explanation isn't weakening by showing that the Author's Explanation is wrong. It weakens by showing we don't need the author's explanation in order to explain the curious fact. Thus, the answer is wrong to move with such overconfidence from observing the curious fact to concluding his particular causal explanation (when other possible causal explanations exist).

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   64%
4. D

   Strengthens, if anything4% picked this

   Personnel of the republic’s armed services are strongly encouraged to finish their

   If armed services personnel are being encouraged to finish their high school education, then by definition those personnel are not high school graduates (thus they are dropouts). So this answer is acknowledging the existence of armed service personnel who are dropouts. That would strengthen the argument, if anything.

   4%
5. E

   No Impact: 2+ years of college4% picked this

   The proportion of recruits who had completed at least two years of college education was greater in

   We can't do anything with a factoid about people who completed "at least 2 years". They might be dropouts. They might be graduates. Who knows. They probably aren't 18-year-olds, since most people don't enter their first year of college until 18. So this answer is talking about a group of people that aren't 18-year-olds, and we can't even tell what proportion of them are graduates vs. dropouts.

   4%