University president: Our pool of applicants

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct46% picked this

   the proposed explanation for the decline in applications applies in

   Why this is right

   This was one of our three prephrase, the Possible vs. Certain move she made. If we negated this, and said "having lower tuition/fees is not the reason that the applicant pool has been shrinking", that would badly weaken her argument.

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

   46%
2. B

   Too Strong: dependent Not Author's Assumption13% picked this

   the quality of a university education is dependent on the amount of tuition charged

   This sounds like something the author believes that parents of high school students believe. She is thinking that, in parents' minds "tuition is an indicator of quality". But "dependent" is stronger than "an indication", and this is the parents' assumption, not the author's.

   13%
3. C

   Reversed Logic Too Strong: guarantee12% picked this

   an increase in tuition and fees at the university would guarantee a

   The conclusion said "in order to get larger pool, we must increase tuition", which would look like this: larger pool → increase tuition / fees This answer accuses the author of claiming that increasing tuition would definitely work. The author is only assuming that her proposed solution could possibly work. If I say, "In order to get a 170+ score on LSAT, you must get great at Logic Games", that doesn't mean I'm assuming that "getting great at Logic Games guarantees you'll get a 170+ score".

   12%
4. D

   Weak Impact19% picked this

   there is no additional explanation for the university's shrinking

   I would take this answer if (A) didn't exist. If we negate it, and there is some additional reason (besides low tuition/fees giving off a low quality vibe) for they the applicant pool is shrinking, then that somewhat weakens the author's conclusion. If my low LSAT score is only due to Games, then "in order to raise my score, I must get better at Games". Meanwhile, if there is an additional explanation, such as I'm also bad at Reading Comp, then it's not true to say "in order to raise my score, I must get better at Games". After all, I could get better at Reading Comp and raise my score that way. Ultimately, negating this answer isn't as strong an objection as negating choice (A). Necessary Assumption questions play by the rules of "Which answer, if negated, most weakens". Also, by saying "one possible explanation" for the shrinking pool, the author is allowing for the idea that there may different or additional explanations.

   19%
5. E

   Irrelevant10% picked this

   the amount charged by the university for tuition has not increased

   Whether it has or hasn't increased in recent years, the effect of the author's premise would be the same: if the current tuition/fees are lower than other schools, then we might be perceived as being inferior quality to these other schools.

   10%