I couldn't understand the explainations presented for the Question 11 and 12.

11. Overeducated

12. Misbehaving

I appreciate if someone can post a detailed explanation

please post the question, along with answer choices (if there are any) and any explanations that you find questionable. (most of us don't tote our strategy guides around to whatever location we're working from, and, much more importantly, this post is useless to other forum readers if it doesn't contain the question & answers.)

thanks.

11. Overeducated:
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of people who had graduated from college in 1985 found an interesting relationship between income and educational attainment: Participants who had completed doctoral or post doctoral work earned less, in 2005, than did those people who had only completed master's degrees. ON the basis of these findings, a prominent essayist contended that obtaining education beyond a master's degree had thereby lowered the participants' 2005 incomes.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the essayist?
a) those who had only completed doctoral work had a higher average income in 2005 than did those who had also completed post-doctoral work.
b) for each year between 1985 and 2005, the average income of those who had, by 2005, earned a doctorate was lower than that of those who had, by 2005, earned only a master's degree.
c)the 2005 average income of those with no graduate training was lower than that of thosee who had completed doctoral or post doctoral work.
d)working in less lucrative fields such as education did not lead people to obtain doctoral or post doctoral education.
e)those who had earned master's degrees did not enter the teaching profession.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY ANSWER CHOICE IS D, since working in the education field is not remotely mentioned in the argument.


12. Misbehaving.
In an attempt to reduce misbehavior, the junior high school principle has decided to make punishments stricter, including prohibiting unruly students from having playtime outdoors. however, this action is clearly counter to the principal's goals, as studies have shown that students who frequently play outdoors are also less likely to misbehave.

a)the cited studies were conducted by academic researchers adhering to established standards of scientific research.
b)students who have been punished by by not having playtime outdoors are less likely to misbehave again in the future.
c)well behaved students do not share a trait, such as a desire to socialize with other students, that leads them to more frequently play outdoors.
d)the principal's suggested policy will not be protested vehemently by local parents who want their children to play outdoors.
e)play time outdoors has been demonstrated to have positive effects on teh physical development of school children.


WHY IS HE ANSWER C?


Thank You

I'm not a huge fan of either of these problems, actually, which is why we cut them from the new version of the CR strategy guide that came out last month.

For the first one, though, I don't have a problem with the mention of the educational field. This is mentioned strictly as an example ("such as") of "less lucrative fields." That's perfectly acceptable. It is not saying that the author assumes someone must work in this specific field; it's just giving an example of what is meant by "less lucrative."

For the second one, I think the logic is too "loose" for an official question (which is, again, why we removed it). So don't worry about that one!