#10 - The administration at a certain university has

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

This stimulus tells us that a recent tuition increased has been attributed to increases in faculty salaries and in need-based student aid. As we may have noticed, although the author does not use the words “cause” or “effect,” this stimulus presents the causal argument provided by the administration:

• Cause Effect
  Faculty salaries
  and tuition increase
  need-based aid increases

The author concludes that “the administration’s explanation is not believable.” This is based on the following two premises:
Premise: Faculty salaries comprise only a small portion of school expenditures.
Premise: The only significant aid increases were those based on merit rather than need.

The strength of the author’s argument is difficult to assess, since we don’t have information on the size of the tuition increase, the number of students paying tuition, or the actual amount of faculty salaries increases.

The question stem asks that we find the answer choice which most strengthens the author’s argument (this will also be the answer choice which most weakens the administration’s causal explanation. We might consider the various ways to weaken a causal argument, because the correct answer choice will likely reflect one of these attacks).

Answer choice (A): Without knowing what was originally spent on scholarship aid, there is no way to know what effect this might have on the overall budget, so this answer choice does not strengthen the author’s argument.

Answer choice (B): Like incorrect answer choice (A) above, this choice presents only information on percentages, which are relative amounts. That is, without knowing what role salaries have in the overall budget, or how much extra tuition was collected, this information does not have an effect on the argument and must be incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This information has no bearing on the causal argument presented (and refuted) in the stimulus, so this cannot be the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, as it provides an alternative cause for the tuition increase: if administrative, maintenance and athletic facilities costs made up the greatest increases to the budget, then this severely weakens the administrations argument.

• Cause Effect
  administrative, maintenance and athletic costs tuition increases

This alternative cause severely weakens the administration’s argument that the tuition increases were caused by increases to faculty salaries and to need based aid. By weakening the administration’s argument, this answer strengthens the author’s argument, so this is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E): The ability to estimate tuition costs ahead of time does not come into play in the author’s argument, which takes place after the fact. Since both the administrations argument and the author’s skepticism are retrospective, this answer choice has not effect on the causal argument from the stimulus.

[ashpine17]

The stimulus states faculty salaries constitute a "small" part of the university's budget. That is very ambiguous language. What is "small?" Like 1%? And for answer choice A, what scholarships is it referring to? The need based aid or the one awarded regardless of need? Does it even matter?

[evelineliu]

Hi Ash,

The language is indeed ambiguous. The administration explained a tuition increase based on faculty salaries and financial aid, but the budget numbers don't match--salaries were a small proportion and the financial aid that the administration described was not increased. The evidence doesn't prove that the administration's explanation is incorrect, but it suggests some other reason for the tuition increase. (D) is that other reason: the greatest increases in the budget were in areas other than the ones described by admin.

(A) (and (B) too, for that matter), on the other hand, deals with specific percentages. Without the actual numbers we're taking percentages of, we can't be certain how they relate to each other. (A) refers to [i]total[/i] scholarships, which would include all types and more than just the need-based aid described in the stimulus.

Hope that helps,
Eveline

[ashpine17]

Does that mean A and B both have negligible or no effect on the argument? Or, depending on the amount, maybe even potential weakeners?

[evelineliu]

Hi Ash,

They have an unclear impact on the argument because we don't have the actual numbers, so the percents don't help us out very much. For example, in (B), the 5% of salaries could be a much smaller number than the 6% of tuition. Without the actual dollar numbers, we can't be certain.

Hope that helps,
Eveline

[moshearking]

The passage never stated that tuition increased only due to increases in faculty spending and need based aid. So the mere fact that there are other "great" (also ambiguous terminology) increases in budgetary spending shouldn't weaken the administrations claims. Without a qualifier like "only" I don't see how D would strengthen the authors claim that the administration's explanation is not believable.

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be putting too much pressure on the answer choices here, moshearking, and holding them to the high standard of a Justify the Conclusion question, in which the correct answer must completely prove the conclusion of the argument. This is not that type of question, but is a Strengthen question. In a Strengthen question we just need to help the author out, so any help at all will suffice, even if it does not provide complete proof.

If answer D is true, it looks like the Administration's explanation for the increase is not matched by the facts. The areas of greatest increase in the budget had nothing to do with either of the things the administration claimed required the tuition increase. This is certainly evidence in the author's favor and against the administration, even if it does not absolutely prove the author is right. Evidence in the author's favor - Strengthens the argument, and that's all we need it to do!

[dhage12]

If B were to state that the TOTAL percentage of the budget for the salaries were 5% (instead of a 5% increase), compared to the 6% increase in tuition, would this make it correct? I understand that B is incorrect as it is, however, because a 5% increase is only relative, and it does not support the claim because we still do not know how large or small the salary is in the total budget.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi dhage12!

The additional language you suggest wouldn't make answer choice (B) correct. In order for that change to make (B) correct, it would need to make it a better answer than (D), which the alteration doesn't seem to do.

If salaries accounted for 5% of the total budget, it's not immediately clear whether that is a lot or not. The conclusion in the stimulus is that the "administration’s explanation is not believable." The administration provided an explanation for "this year’s tuition increase by citing increased spending on faculty salaries and on need-based aid to students." If (B) mentioned that faculty salaries accounted for 5% of the total budget this year, we don't know how this compares to what percentage it was before--e.g., if it was previously 1%, then the administrations explanation makes more sense, but if it was previously 5%, then the explanation seems less plausible.