Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic development, Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Misc.

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic development, Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science. Undoubtedly the reason is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree. An inspired and knowledgeable science teacher can excite students about science, thus encouraging them to get a degree in science.

Which of the following most accurately restates the conclusion of the teacher's argument?

Nation X has a lower proportion of college students who get a degree in science than do most nations with comparable levels of economic development.

Most secondary-school science teachers in Nation X lack science degrees and have trouble exciting students about science.

Inspired and knowledgeable secondary-school science teachers can encourage their students to get a degree in science in college.

The reason that only a relatively low proportion of college students in Nation X get a degree in science is that most secondary-school science teachers there lack science degrees.

If more secondary-school students in Nation X would become more excited about science, more of them would eventually go on to become science teachers.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Among thirty nations with comparable levels of economic development, Nation X ranks twenty-eighth in the proportion of college students who get a degree in science.	What it says: Nation X ranks really low (28th out of 30) for students getting science degrees What it does: Sets up the problem - establishes that Nation X is performing poorly in science education What it is: Author's factual claim Visualization: 30 nations ranked 1-30, Nation X sits at position 28 (near the bottom)
Undoubtedly the reason is that most of the nation's secondary-school science teachers do not have a science degree.	What it says: The author claims the poor ranking happens because most high school science teachers lack science degrees What it does: Identifies the cause of the problem mentioned in the first statement What it is: Author's conclusion/main claim
An inspired and knowledgeable science teacher can excite students about science, thus encouraging them to get a degree in science.	What it says: Good science teachers (who know their stuff) can motivate students to pursue science degrees What it does: Provides the reasoning that supports why teacher qualifications matter for student outcomes What it is: Author's supporting premise

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with a problem (Nation X's poor science degree performance), then immediately jumps to the conclusion about what causes this problem (unqualified teachers), and finally provides support for why teacher qualifications would matter (good teachers inspire students).

Main Conclusion:

The reason Nation X ranks so poorly in science degrees is that most of its high school science teachers don't have science degrees themselves.

Logical Structure:

The author uses a cause-and-effect structure: unqualified teachers → uninspired students → fewer science degrees. The premise about inspired teachers motivating students serves as the bridge that explains why teacher qualifications would impact student choices.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Misc - This is asking us to identify and restate the main conclusion of the argument. We need to find what the author is ultimately trying to prove or establish.

Precision of Claims

The key claim is causal - the author claims that Nation X's poor science degree performance is caused by most secondary science teachers lacking science degrees. This is a specific causal relationship between teacher qualifications and student outcomes.

Strategy

For conclusion identification questions, we need to distinguish between premises (supporting evidence) and the conclusion (what's being proven). The conclusion is usually the author's main claim that they're trying to establish using other statements as support. We should look for indicator words like 'undoubtedly' and examine the logical flow - what supports what?

Answer Choices Explained

Nation X has a lower proportion of college students who get a degree in science than do most nations with comparable levels of economic development.

This restates the factual premise about Nation X's poor ranking (28th out of 30 nations), but this is just the evidence the author uses to set up the problem. The conclusion is the author's explanation for WHY this poor performance exists, not just a restatement of the poor performance itself.

Most secondary-school science teachers in Nation X lack science degrees and have trouble exciting students about science.

This goes beyond what the argument actually states. While the author says most teachers lack science degrees, the author never explicitly claims these teachers 'have trouble exciting students.' This adds information not present in the original argument and misses the causal claim structure.

Inspired and knowledgeable secondary-school science teachers can encourage their students to get a degree in science in college.

This simply restates the supporting premise about inspired teachers being able to encourage students. This statement supports the conclusion but isn't the main claim the author is trying to prove. It's the reasoning that explains why teacher qualifications matter.

The reason that only a relatively low proportion of college students in Nation X get a degree in science is that most secondary-school science teachers there lack science degrees.

This perfectly captures the author's main conclusion by restating the causal claim. The author's central argument is that Nation X's low science degree proportion is CAUSED BY the fact that most secondary science teachers lack science degrees. This choice maintains both the causal structure ('the reason that...is that') and the specific content of the author's explanation.

If more secondary-school students in Nation X would become more excited about science, more of them would eventually go on to become science teachers.

This introduces a completely new idea about students becoming science teachers, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the original argument. The author never discusses the supply of future science teachers - only the current impact of unqualified teachers on student degree choices.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...