The children in the second grade at a local elementary school scored lower on tests of math skills this year than the second graders did last year. The school board blames the disappointing results on the budget cuts that forced the school to consolidate several classes of second-grade students, thus depriving them of the individualized attention that they had previously enjoyed.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the explanation offered by the school board for the students' lower test scores?

A) Students at other elementary schools in the area also scored poorly on the same test of math skills this year.

B) No new textbooks were purchased by the school board this year.

C) The test that the second graders took this year was not more difficult than the test that the second graders took last year.

D) Students in the third grade at the elementary school performed better in math this year than the third graders did last year.

E) Other schools in the area also experienced severe budget cuts.

In this question the right answer is given as C)
But why not B) ? Since new textbooks are also an important factor in students' performance and by eliminating this alternative possible cause we may strengthen the argument.

Best regards,
Mert

It sounds like you might be reading more into (B). Are you perhaps thinking that new text books are better books? Or maybe the opposite--experimental text books might have been inferior, so (B) eliminates that worry? Either way, you are making some assumption about the value or effect of the books.

All (B) says is that this year's 2nd graders used the same books as last year's 2nd graders. It does not explain the decline in test scores, and this choice does nothing to support or weaken the board's explanation.

(C) is more directly related to the test scores--it concerns the difficulty of the test itself.

_________________
Emily Sledge
Instructor
ManhattanGMAT