#2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption-CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

The stimulus observes that over the past 13 years, counselors have implemented a program to convince students to select careers requiring college degrees. A study indicates a 15% increase over 10 years in the rate of graduates who go on to college, so the counselors conclude that the program is successful.

The counselors make two huge assumptions. First of all, they presume that their program is the cause of the increase, ignoring that the increase could be due to many other factors. Secondly, the counselors' program has to do with career selection, and the counselors ignore that the 15% increase might not indicate that the students are aiming for careers that require college degrees.

Since you are asked to identify a necessary assumption, you should look for one of the discussed assumptions.

Answer choice (A): If the number of graduates going to college remains constant, while the rate increases, that could suggest that many more students do not even graduate high school, let alone select a career that would require college. This choice can be a means of attacking the counselor's causal assumption, so this choice is wrong.

Answer choice (B): The counselors are trying to promote careers that require degrees, not careers that require just a bit of college. The fact that any college courses can improve career prospects might actually undermine the assumption that the 15% increase is due to students aiming for degree-requiring careers.

Answer choice (C): The counselors are interested in proclaiming their own success, so they would not necessarily assume that some of the increase cannot be attributed to their own actions.

Answer choice (D): This choice is somewhat supportive of the counselor's position, but the problem is that career plans do not indicate careers that actually require a college degree. This choice does not support the causal relationship, and this choice does not adequately link the 15% increase to an increase in degree-requiring career aims.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The counselors have to assume that the 15% increase indicates something about an increase in the percentage of students seeking degree-requiring careers, and the idea that many of last years graduates who went on to college want to prepare for careers that require college degrees is an adequate expression of that assumption.

[melissa27]

In reference to question #36 on page 5-62 from lesson 5 hw, could you please provide an example with hypothetical numbers and percents for the explanation for answer choice A. I tried to give my hypotheticals the same totals but still didn't really understand the explanation.

I arrived at the correct answer(e) but when reviewing the problem I didn't exactly understand why A was wrong, I just though E was a better answer in comparison.

[Steve Stein]

Sure: let's say a decade ago, 100 people out of 1000 total high school graduates went on to college--back then, that group represented 10% of all high school graduates.

At present, lets say there are 100 people out of 400 total high school graduates who go on to college. That means that today the percentage has gone up to 25%, but we can see that this is not really as impressive as it seems.

Further, keep in mind that this is an assumption question, and there is no reason that the author would have to assume that number to have remained constant.

Let me know whether that clears it up--thanks!

~Steve

[Etsevdos]

To confirm: When negating E: Many is equivalent to some logically - meaning at least one. When negating either term, the correct answer would be "None". If none of last years grads went to college to prepare for careers requiring college degrees, then clearly the conclusion does not hold true. Is this correct?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Etsevdos,

Your reasoning is correct for negating "some." However, there is a difference in meaning between some and many. I would recommend that you read this post by Dave Killoran on the topic LSAT Quantity Terminology: Some, Few, Several, and Many.

The difference that this makes for this question is small. Instead of negating "some" to "none" you should have negated "many" to "not many" or "none or only a small amount." This different negation will yield the same result for evaluating answer choice (E), but let us know if you have any further questions!

[Etsevdos]

Thanks. I guess I have not really seen the distinction affect any of my answers (YET). Can you please help me understand when / how it would / can? Perhaps an example?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi etsevdos,

If I can jump in here, I think what we are focusing on in the distinction between not many (i.e. some) and not some (i.e. none) is important to understand. We are saying in the former that at least 1 did something whereas with the latter, 0 did it. Does that make sense?

Let me know if that helps!

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

I find myself constantly struggling over questions that deals with % and #s. To follow-up from Steve's explanation, A) is incorrect because if the number of graduates who went out to college remained the same throughout the 10 years, the fact that we now have 15% greater does not necessary mean that the program had an effect because it could be that our current total population of graduates are smaller than previous years (the constant past 10 years), thus expanding our current the percentage to 15%. So the 15% increase could be because the total of graduates are smaller than the constant 10 years and not because of the aggressive program?

Is it because A) also wrong because it is giving us concrete numbers and the stim is providing us percentages?

I chose A initially because I misread it as the number of graduates remained constant each year during the 10-year period, thus I thought that would be necessary to conclude that there is in fact a 15% total increase since the total number is constant between two groups we are comparing is the same/constant. However, yes- even with this thinking it doesn't link up the necessary assumption of 15% aggressive program.

E) is the correct answer because in the stm. it says 15% greater percentage of those who graduated went on to college and concludes that it must be because of the program. The gap is that we need to know that the reason/ motivation for the increase in 15% is going to college because the graduates took on the advice to prepare for career requiring college degrees. Is this the correct line of thinking?

Thanks a lot!

[Adam Tyson]

Hey lunsandy, hope I can help here. The issue is not really one of numbers and percentages, even though percentages are referenced (a 15% increase over 13 years). The issue is really one of causation. The counselors believe that the program (designed to encourage careers that require college) is the cause of the increase. That means they are assuming that there is no other cause, that where the cause is present the effect is also present, that where the cause is absent the effect is also absent, that the two correlated things don't have a reversed causal relationship, and that the data on which the causal argument was based is good.

Answer E addresses the first one on the list - not some other cause. If the students chose college because of their career interests, that at least helps the causal claim that the program is responsible for the increase. The negation would be something like "few of last year's graduates who went on to college did so in order to prepare for careers requiring college degrees", which would wreck the argument. If they are going there for other reasons (to party, to delay the inevitable facing of reality in the working world, to experience the joys of dorm living, etc.) then the program would not be the cause of the increase.

Answer A isn't relevant to the causal issue. What is the number was NOT constant? There is still an increased percentage - could the program still be the cause of that increased percentage? Sure it could! The negation of A does no damage to the argument, so it is not the correct answer.

Turns out the numbers are a side issue here. Focus instead on the causality, and you'll get there. Keep at it!

[lunsandy]

Makes sense Adam! Thank you