#26 - The number of applications for admission reported by

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

WeakenX—CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

This is a fairly difficult question for many test takers. The main idea presented is that the interest among recent North American university graduates in choosing art history as a career has declined in the last four years. The reason for this conclusion is that the number of applications for admissions reported by North American Ph.D. programs in art history has declined in the last four years.

Since this is a weaken question you should be looking for vulnerabilities in the information presented. And of course since this is an Except question each of the four wrong answer choices will attack a vulnerable element of the argument.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice weakens the argument by attacking the data presented by the schools. In other words, it may not be that the number of applications has actually declined, but only that the number being reported has declined.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The fact that the average age of applicants has increased does not attack the argument that interest in art history as a career has decreased.

Answer choice (C): Like answer choice A, this answer attacks the data reported by the programs as being inaccurate. Thus it may not accurately represent a decline of applications.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice weakens the idea that people are not interested in pursuing art history as a career by attacking the connection between applying to graduate programs and pursuing a career in art history. If employers are willing to hire individuals for jobs in art history without a degree, it could be the case that people are still interested in pursuing art history as a career but no longer need a degree to attain a job in that field.

Answer choice (E): Since the conclusion is about North American university graduates, and is based on an overall decline in applications to North American programs, if the number of foreign applications decreased significantly then it could be the case that North American graduates still have a strong interest in careers in art history and the decline in applications is from a decreased interest among foreign students.

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I had a question on number 7 in the actual lesson in the cause and effect questions. page 3-10
I have read the explanations, but when I was picking my answers I was stuck between B and D, B looked right and also D looked right. However, when I read the explnations, I found out that D is the wrong answer, I am still unclear as why it is the wrong answer.

Thanks

Ellen

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Ellen,

Remember that this is an Except question, so answer choice (D) does Weaken the argument. And whenever you see a situation like this, always try to figure out why an answer is wrong a few times first--if you can get that "a-ha" moment, it tends to stick with you more than if someone else explains it That said, let's look more closely at this one.

The conclusion of the argument states that, "interest among recent North American college and university graduates in choosing art history as a career has declined in the last four years" (italics added).

What (D) says is that a greater number of employers are "willing to hire individuals without a Ph.D. for jobs in art history..." If this is so, someone could still have a great interest in art history as a career, but no longer need to have an art history degree to pursue that interest. Thus, instead of a lack of interest in art history as a career causing the lowered application numbers, it's a change in the requirements for a job in the art history field that is causing the drop.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[lsatnoobie]

Hello!

The stimulus says that interest among recent North American college graduates has declined. Answer choice B states the average age of applicants has increased -- couldn't this mean that BECAUSE RECENT graduates have lost interest (and therefore no longer applying), that naturally the average age of applicants goes up since now the bulk of applicants aren't recent grads (thereby not being as young).

Thank you so much!

[Adam Tyson]

Be careful about bringing in outside information, noobie! Who says that recent graduates are younger than folks who didn't recently graduate? I had a student in my last class who was a retired chef with grown kids, and he was getting ready to go to law school to fulfill his lifelong dream. I had law school classmates in their 60's, and one in her 70s! This is a trick the LSAT loves to pull on us, getting us to bring in our (usually reasonable) assumptions and biases from the outside world and treating them as if they were facts.

Also, don't help the answers by adding more info to them than they give you. Does the change in the average age of applicants, by itself and without knowing anything about why it increased, do anything to weaken that claim that interest in careers in art history among a certain group has declined? Nope, not a thing. Interest could still be down. The increased age of applicants might be because recent graduates are younger and have lost interest (strengthening the argument), or it might weaken it (because maybe there is just as much interest among recent grads in that career but they are discouraged from applying due to competition from a growing number of older applicants). We just can't know, and we really shouldn't even speculate. All we have to ask ourselves is whether that answer, by itself and with no help from the outside, hurts the claim that interest in those careers among those recent grads is down. It does not, and so it is our winner to this Weaken-Except question.

No outside biases or assumptions, other than the most basic ones (like if the sun is shining, it is probably daytime).

Keep at it!

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

I was able to choose (B) but (E) seems a bit confusing, because it says "percentage" instead of "number". The decline of the percentage of applications from outside North America (together with the decline of total number of applications as indicated in the stimulus) could result from 1) the decline of the number of applications from outside North America, and 2) the decline of the number of applications from both outside and inside North America. In this case, (E) does not necessarily weaken the argument, since the number of applicants from North America may still have declined.

Could you explain (E) for me? Thanks a lot in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E doesn't disprove the conclusion, lilmissunshine, but it doesn't have to. The job of a weaken question is simply to introduce some doubt about the conclusion, and answer E does that by giving us a possible alternate cause for the drop in the total number of applications coming in to those PhD programs.

The author says that total apps are down. He concludes that reduced interest in those careers among North Americans is the cause of that decline in the total (I'm paraphrasing and simplifying a bit, bear with me). Answer E gives us an alternate cause - interest among North Americans could be the same as ever, maybe even higher, but interest in those programs from folks outside North America may be down. Imagine, if you will, that those programs used to get 120 applications per year. Maybe folks from Europe, South America, Asia, Africa, etc. made up 50% of those applications, or 60 applications, while the other 60 came from within North America. This year, however, those folks from abroad only submitted 40 applications, while the North Americans are still applying in the same numbers, submitting the same 60 apps that they always had. The total went down from 120 to 100, but the North Americans are still hitting their old numbers. The other folks have dropped from 50% down to 40%, and that is what accounts for the reduced total. Not lower interest from the North Americans after all!

Again, this answer doesn't disprove the conclusion, but it does make us wonder about it. Reduced applications from abroad is a reasonable alternate cause for the decline in the total, and so the conclusion that North Americans are losing interest is no longer looking so strong. It's weaker! We did it!

[quichy10]

Although I read and understand the explanation, I still don't quite understand why E is wrong. E certainly doesn't weaken the argument. Rather is does nothing to the argument and it is the reason why I picked that answer. I suppose B really doesn't weaken the argument either (in my view), but it remains true to the issues discussed in the stimulus. I guess that is how I would explain the reasoning as to why B is correct, but I still think E doesn't weaken the argument at all.

[Bob O'Halloran]

Hi Quichy,
Thank you for your question.
Answer choice (E) weakens the argument by providing an alternate cause for the effect. Instead of a decline in interest of North American graduates, it is the decline in interest of students outside North America that is causing the decline in applications.

Providing an alternate cause for the stated effect is a common way for the test makers to weaken a cause and effect argument.

Weaken Except question are great for studying because they provide 4 examples of weakening an argument in one question!

Please let us if you have any additional questions.
Bob

[goldol1021]

Why would it be B.

The stimulus says nothing about "age" and therefore shouldn't this answer choice be irrelevant? Why does the aspect of age bring this to be the correct answer?

Why could it not be C? If answer C is disproving the facts when it mentions the "errors in the data" which can be disproving the argument?

Could you be more specific about why it is B and not D or C?