According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?

*Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement.
*While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county.
*In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education.
*In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges.
*Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges.

The explanation asserts that the answer is E. However, in my view, 30% of public high school graduates become farmers and that is precisely why one should avoid the public high school if one aspires to pursue college. I thought the answer is D because an athletic program at PH increases one’s chance of college acceptance.
Can someone explain further to me?

Let's think about D. Okay, that's nice that public schools provide these activities, but is it really helping the students get into college? We know that 90% of private school students and 65% of public school students go to college; thus, public school students' access to these activities is not giving them a huge edge over private school students.

What is going on here? The author is trying to assert that merely going to private school CAUSES the students to go to college at a higher rate than if the students had gone to public school. What do you think of this argument? I think it's pretty goofy because it's much more likely that this actually has to do with a difference in the two groups of students, not that private school in itself causes college attendance. To me, it makes more sense to consider the possibility that students who go to private school come from families who place a high value on education and can afford to send the students. Thus, it's really about differences between the two groups rather than the public vs. private issue.

Okay, so to weaken this argument I find a choice that affirms this idea. E works nicely. E points out that the types of students attending the two types of schools are different: public school students are naturally less inclined to attend college and more likely to become farmers. If we stuck them in private school this state of affairs would not change; they are just a different population.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor