Top Law Schools

I'm wondering if someone could expand on Powerscore's explanation of why "D" is wrong. It says this is a shell game answer, but I never confused dropouts with graduates. To me "D" seems like a good alternative explanation: With these new placement offices, graduates have better job prospects and there is more incentive for kids to finish school. Hence the lower dropout rate. I wish the book explained why this is incorrect.

What's the question? I don't have my LR Bible handy.

Dec. 1999, section 2 #11

BigA wrote:Dec. 1999, section 2 #11

Post it here or PM to me, I don't have any of my LSAT material with me but I can try and help you out.

D) says high schools have established placement offices to assist graduates.
So, it does move the goalposts and take about graduates.
But also, it doesn't say the offices are so successful that significantly more graduates are getting jobs, thereby accounting for the significant decrease in drop-out rate as those students stick around to get the help.

I think it's a combination of both factors: D doesn't focus on the drop-outs and it isn't compelling anyway.

Skyhook wrote:D) says high schools have established placement offices to assist graduates.
So, it does move the goalposts and take about graduates.
But also, it doesn't say the offices are so successful that significantly more graduates are getting jobs, thereby accounting for the significant decrease in drop-out rate as those students stick around to get the help.

I think it's a combination of both factors: D doesn't focus on the drop-outs and it isn't compelling anyway.

D may appear to offer an alternate cause, but it does not. As the book, says, D talks about graduates while the stimulus talks about dropouts. Moreover, we're looking for a reason as to why the dropout rate has reduced. Focus on the first sentence of the stimulus. How would D affect that? Dropouts leave to find employment. As far as we know (based on the stimulus), there is no trouble finding employment. Thus, staying in school to take advantage of a post-graduate placement offer wouldn't do much to weaken the force of the argument.

Skyhook wrote:D) says high schools have established placement offices to assist graduates.
So, it does move the goalposts and take about graduates.
But also, it doesn't say the offices are so successful that significantly more graduates are getting jobs, thereby accounting for the significant decrease in drop-out rate as those students stick around to get the help.

I think it's a combination of both factors: D doesn't focus on the drop-outs and it isn't compelling anyway.

I kinda thought of this as I was typing. You have to make a bit of an assumption, but I don't think it's much of a leap to say that assisting graduates in obtaining employment will improve their job prospects and create more incentive to graduate. So at the very least I think it's kinda dirty

I still don't see how it's a shell game. The info about the graduates affects the would-be dropouts.

BigA wrote:

Skyhook wrote:D) says high schools have established placement offices to assist graduates.
So, it does move the goalposts and take about graduates.
But also, it doesn't say the offices are so successful that significantly more graduates are getting jobs, thereby accounting for the significant decrease in drop-out rate as those students stick around to get the help.

I think it's a combination of both factors: D doesn't focus on the drop-outs and it isn't compelling anyway.

I kinda thought of this as I was typing. You have to make a bit of an assumption, but I don't think it's much of a leap to say that assisting graduates in obtaining employment will improve their job prospects and create more incentive to graduate. So at the very least I think it's kinda dirty

I still don't see how it's a shell game. The info about the graduates affects the would-be dropouts.

Logically speaking, do we have any reason to believe that increasing job prospects would deter people who feel they are doing poorly in school from dropping out? Based on the stimulus, we don't. Based on the stimulus, we have no reason to believe that these drop-outs have a hard time finding work. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that they want, or even need the placement program to help them find jobs.

Logically speaking, do we have any reason to believe that increasing job prospects would deter people who feel they are doing poorly in school from dropping out? Based on the stimulus, we don't. Based on the stimulus, we have no reason to believe that these drop-outs have a hard time finding work. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that they want, or even need the placement program to help them find jobs.

Totally agree. The drop-outs do so and get a job. The best reason for them to stay is that is harder to get a job.
Powerscore is basically saying you can discount D because it doesn't address drop-outs, only graduates.
If we are going to attack the argument we need to look specifically at drop-outs.