After graduating from high school, people rarely multiply fractions or discuss ancient Rome, but they are confronted daily with decisions...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

After graduating from high school, people rarely multiply fractions or discuss ancient Rome, but they are confronted daily with decisions relating to home economics. Yet whereas mathematics and history are required courses in the high school curriculum, home economics is only an elective, and few students choose to take it.

Which of the following positions would be best supported by the considerations above?

If mathematics and history were not required courses, few students would choose to take them.

Whereas home economics would be the most useful subject for people facing the decisions they must make in daily life, often mathematics and history can also help them face these decisions.

If it is important to teach high school students subjects that relate to decisions that will confront them in their daily lives, then home economics should be made an important part of the high school curriculum.

Mathematics, history, and other courses that are not directly relevant to a person's daily life should not be a required part of the high school curriculum.

Unless high schools put more emphasis on nonacademic subjects like home economics, people graduating from high school will never feel comfortable about making the decisions that will confront them in their daily lives.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
After graduating from high school, people rarely multiply fractions or discuss ancient Rome, but they are confronted daily with decisions relating to home economics.	What it says: Most people don't use math/history skills after high school, but they deal with home economics decisions every day What it does: Sets up a contrast between subjects that aren't used vs. one that is constantly used in real life What it is: Author's observation about real-world relevance Visualization: Daily life post-graduation: Math/History use = 5%, Home Economics decisions = 80%
Yet whereas mathematics and history are required courses in the high school curriculum, home economics is only an elective, and few students choose to take it.	What it says: Math and history are mandatory in school, but home economics is optional and rarely chosen What it does: Creates a contradiction with the previous statement - shows schools prioritize less-useful subjects What it is: Author's factual claim about curriculum requirements Visualization: School requirements: Math/History = 100% required, Home Economics = 15% of students take it

Text from Passage

Analysis

After graduating from high school, people rarely multiply fractions or discuss ancient Rome, but they are confronted daily with decisions relating to home economics.

What it says: Most people don't use math/history skills after high school, but they deal with home economics decisions every day
What it does: Sets up a contrast between subjects that aren't used vs. one that is constantly used in real life
What it is: Author's observation about real-world relevance
Visualization: Daily life post-graduation: Math/History use = 5%, Home Economics decisions = 80%

Yet whereas mathematics and history are required courses in the high school curriculum, home economics is only an elective, and few students choose to take it.

What it says: Math and history are mandatory in school, but home economics is optional and rarely chosen
What it does: Creates a contradiction with the previous statement - shows schools prioritize less-useful subjects
What it is: Author's factual claim about curriculum requirements
Visualization: School requirements: Math/History = 100% required, Home Economics = 15% of students take it

Argument Flow:

The argument presents a clear contradiction between what's useful in real life versus what schools require. It starts by showing home economics is most relevant to daily adult life, then contrasts this with the fact that schools make irrelevant subjects mandatory while making the useful subject optional.

Main Conclusion:

There's no explicit conclusion stated, but the argument strongly implies that home economics should have a more prominent place in the curriculum (likely as a required course rather than an elective).

Logical Structure:

This uses a contradiction structure: Real-world relevance (home economics most useful) + Current school priorities (math/history required, home economics ignored) = Something needs to change in how we structure education priorities.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that would increase belief in the implied conclusion that home economics should be prioritized over math/history in high school curriculum

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific frequency claims (rarely vs daily), curriculum status claims (required vs elective), and participation claims (few students choose it)

Strategy

Since this is a strengthen question, we need to find new information that would make the implied argument stronger. The logical gap here is between 'home economics is more useful in daily life' and 'therefore it should be prioritized in curriculum.' We should look for information that bridges this gap or reinforces the premise that practical daily usefulness should determine curriculum requirements.

Answer Choices Explained

If mathematics and history were not required courses, few students would choose to take them.

This prediction about student behavior goes beyond what the argument establishes. While we know few students currently choose home economics as an elective, we cannot extrapolate this pattern to math and history. The argument doesn't provide evidence about what students would choose if math and history weren't required - it only tells us about their real-world utility after graduation.

Whereas home economics would be the most useful subject for people facing the decisions they must make in daily life, often mathematics and history can also help them face these decisions.

This directly contradicts the passage, which states people 'rarely' use math skills like multiplying fractions or discuss ancient Rome after graduation. The argument emphasizes the contrast between frequent home economics decisions and rare use of math/history knowledge. This choice weakens rather than supports the argument's position.

This conditional statement perfectly captures the argument's logic. The passage demonstrates that home economics involves daily decisions while math and history are rarely used post-graduation. If schools should prioritize practically relevant subjects (the 'if' condition), then the evidence strongly supports making home economics more prominent (the 'then' conclusion). This position flows directly from the argument's premises.

Mathematics, history, and other courses that are not directly relevant to a person's daily life should not be a required part of the high school curriculum.

This goes too far by making an absolute statement about removing requirements. The argument shows a contradiction between current priorities and real-world utility, but it doesn't necessarily argue for eliminating math and history entirely - just that home economics deserves more prominence. This choice is more extreme than what the argument supports.

This makes an extreme prediction about emotional consequences ('never feel comfortable') that isn't supported by the argument. The passage discusses frequency of use and curriculum structure but doesn't address students' comfort levels or psychological outcomes. This choice introduces new claims not established in the argument.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...