Why cant the answer be option A, isnt it providing another reason for increasing funding for music programs as it increases student participation. For strengthening we can do 2 things right, either strengthen the already given support which is enhancing academic performance or we can add another support which can be increasing student participation??
Nope. If the argument is about improving academic performance that’s what needs to be supported. There’s nothing in the argument saying that student participation is something they desire.
I think what he is trying to say is, the first sentence mentions that the study suggests - “students who participate in music programs” perform better “academically” than those who do not.
So, if there is an increase in student participation in music program, which is supported by option A then this might lead to more students performing academically (as the university’s decision was also based on the stated study).
It doesn’t have to though, it’s too much of a stretch. It could be that participation increases, but those participating are not good at academics. Try and stick more to the argument
Sorry but I still don’t understand how this is a stretch since the assumption on which university have based their decision itself mentions that higher participation is likely to result in better academics. So indeed increasing student participation may be desirable by them. Because the university refers to the study, and getting more people into music may result in better grades.
The argument is that “music participation = improved academic performance”, choice A does not say anything about improvement in academic performance. Choice A is saying “more funding = more participation”, it does nothing to strengthen the argument being made.
Choice B is strengthening the evidence. It’s saying that “the students in the music program (with improved academics) are from similar background as those who aren’t in the program” which is further suggesting that it’s the music program participation that’s causing their improved academic performance.
1 Like
Ok got it. Thanks!
1 Like
i think this is a weak and faulty question.
A recent study at Greenfield University suggests that students who participate in music programs perform better academically than those who do not (1). Based on this, the university has decided to increase funding for their music programs(2), expecting that this will enhance overall academic performance(3).
So 1 supports action 2, 1+2 need to support 3, we need to strengthen this missing link.
A) Why This Option Strengthens the University’s Decision:
- Evidence from Similar Cases: The fact that other universities experienced an increase in student participation after increasing funding suggests a trend. If Greenfield University can expect similar results, it bolsters the argument that investing in music programs could lead to more students engaging in those programs.
- Link to Academic Performance: Increased participation in music programs, as indicated by other universities, could lead to improved academic performance, which is the ultimate goal of Greenfield University’s funding decision. If more students participate, it can support the hypothesis that music programs contribute to better academic outcomes.
- Precedent for Success: By highlighting that other universities have benefited from increased funding, it presents a precedent that suggests funding is a worthwhile investment. This could serve as a model for Greenfield University, showing that similar initiatives have produced positive results.
B) Why Option B Could Be Right:
- Elimination of Socioeconomic Bias: This statement addresses the potential concern that the observed academic performance improvements could be attributed to socioeconomic status rather than the participation in music programs. By indicating that students in the music programs do not come from privileged backgrounds at a higher rate than those who do not participate, it suggests that the benefits seen in academic performance are due to the music programs themselves rather than external factors.
- Supporting Causality: If students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds benefit similarly from music programs, it strengthens the argument that these programs have a positive impact on academic performance across various demographics. This supports the university’s decision that funding music programs can lead to improved academic outcomes for a wider range of students.
…
Comparison of Both Answers:
- Connection to Decision-Making:
- First Option: Directly relates to the outcome of increasing funding. It provides evidence that funding leads to increased participation in music programs, which is likely to improve academic performance as suggested by the study.
- Second Option: Focuses on the demographic background of the students in the music programs, emphasizing that benefits are not exclusive to privileged students. While this is important, it doesn’t directly connect to the outcome of funding the programs.
- Support for Expected Outcomes:
- First Option: Suggests a causal relationship between increased funding and increased participation. More participants can lead to better academic performance, reinforcing the university’s expectation.
- Second Option: While it eliminates socioeconomic bias as a factor influencing performance, it does not directly support the idea that funding will lead to better outcomes.
- Relevance to Broader Trends:
- First Option: Provides a broader context by showing that other institutions have successfully benefited from similar funding increases, implying that Greenfield University could expect the same results.
- Second Option: While relevant to equity and inclusivity, it doesn’t provide evidence of a broader trend or outcome resulting from increased funding.
Conclusion:
The better answer is the first option: “Other universities that increased funding for their arts programs, including music, saw a moderate increase in student participation in these programs.”
Edit: i saw these answer types of A and B in GMAT an ETS. both A and B types could be correct and a question where both answers could be correct will NOT be asked in the real exam. just ignore this question and move on.
I think you make a good point, since we wrote the question its not likely to be perfect. It’s always better to use official GRE/GMAT material for the best practice.
Our logic behind A being wrong was 2 things:
- Situations in other universities (that might be totally different to Greenfield) might not apply here
- Even if participation improved, the argument is about academic performance. If you pick this answer, you have to assume the study is sound
However, if you disagree that’s totally okay. I would practice with official materials.