Top Law Schools

The credited response is (A) but I am SURE that this is incorrect. Here is my logic:

The question stem states that one possible explanation for the shrinking applicant pool is charging too little. It also states that to increase the size of the applicant pool they must start charging more.

(A) is apparently the answer, but all (A) states is that this explanation does in fact apply. It doesn't, however, state that none of the other possible explanations apply as well. Thus, even though charging more would increase the size of the applicant pool, it's not necessarily true that they must start charging more to increase the size of the applicant pool; other actions could produce this result as well.

(D) appears to me to be the correct answer. It states that there are no other explanations for the shrinking applicant pool. Thus, the one possible explanation given in the question stem must in fact be the correct explanation. Now, not only is it true that charging more will increase the size of the applicant pool, but it's also true that there's no other explanation and thus no other solution, e.g. they must charge more to increase the size of the applicant pool.

What am I missing?

If they're concluding that they need to raise fees in order to increase the applicant pool then that in fact does require the assumption that the proposed "possible" explanation applies in this case. Otherwise if it didn't apply, then that would invalidate their conclusion which destroys their argument entirely. If you negate the answer choice to read: "the proposed explanation for the decline in applications does not apply in this case" then the conclusion that they need to raise tuition fees would be destroyed because that would mean there's another plausible explanation regarding the drop in the applicant pool that is unrelated to tuition fees.

The argument in the beginning allows for the possibility of multiple explanations and then proceeds to provide a solution based on one of the explanations given in the stimulus, namely that the drop in applicants is because they charge too little for tuition fees. Given that they provide the solution of increasing tuition fees, then they would consequentially have to assume that their explanation given in the stimulus is the one that applies. Hope this helps

I see what you're saying, but it seems to me that (A) doesn't go far enough. All (A) does is state that the proposed solution will work; it doesn't state that it's the only solution that will work, thus the conclusion in the question stem that it must be done is incorrect. But (D) states that there's no other possible explanation, which means that not only will the proposed solution work but no other solution could work, so the "must" is justified.

KFV wrote:I see what you're saying, but it seems to me that (A) doesn't go far enough. All (A) does is state that the proposed solution will work; it doesn't state that it's the only solution that will work, thus the conclusion in the question stem that it must be done is incorrect. But (D) states that there's no other possible explanation, which means that not only will the proposed solution work but no other solution could work, so the "must" is justified.

Keep in mind that since this is a necessary assumption question rather than a sufficient assumption/justify the conclusion question type, the correct answer choice when added as a premise of the argument does not have to perfect the argument and make the conclusion logically solid/air tight the way the correct answer has to with sufficient assumption questions.

If this were a sufficient assumption question, answer choice (D) would qualify as the correct answer, but it states more than is necessary for the argument to still hold some water. It doesn't have to be true that there is no other ADDITIONAL explanation for decreasing applicants in order for the conclusion to still be able to be true that raising tuition is required. The argument does not conclude that raising tuition WILL increase applicants (hence be sufficient) or that low tuition is the only cause for lowered applicants, it merely concludes that lower tuition is one cause for lowered applicants and raising it is one (not the only) necessary way to try to increase applicants.

Even though the conclusion asserts that increasing tuition is necessary to increase applicants, nothing in the argument asserts or assumes that it is the ONLY way to increase applicants, just that it is one necessary causal factor, leaving open the possibility that there could ALSO be other additional causes for lowered applicants, such as old deteriorating facilities, decline in local population, many other things you could imagine, etc. that could also be true at the same time that the author just didn't include. With that in mind, there could be other things in addition to increasing tuition that could additionally help increase applicants beyond what only raising tuition would cause and they would be perfectly compatible with the argument.

When you negate (D) it does not weaken the argument the way a necessary assumption does when negated because it includes the word ADDITIONAL, thus agreeing that the explanation the University President bases his conclusion on is accurate, and therefore not weakening the conclusion that raising tuition is necessary while also leaving open the possibility there are other additional explanations. Additional rather than alternative is a key here since in this situation having other explanations does not undermine the one given in the argument to support the conclusion. If the word 'additional' in (D) were changed to 'alternative', then it would qualify as a correct answer (which would be impossible if (A) was not removed from the question).

In fact, in either negated form or original form (D) can be seen to strengthen the argument because it asserts that the explanation the president relies on is correct by using the word ADDITIONAL. If there are some other additional explanations, it still remains true that low tuition is a cause for lowered applicants, just not the only cause.

(A) states only what is necessary, that lower tuition is a cause of lowered applicants.
(D) states, by using the word additional, the same thing as (A), that lower tuition is a cause of lowered applicants PLUS another thing, that there is no additional cause. Since there is nothing about exclusivity in the argument ruling out other possible additional causes, it doesn't matter to the Presidents conclusion about raising tuition being necessary whether or not there are other possible causes along with low tuition. If you mentioned other explanations and other possible solutions that could also help increase tuition, there is nothing in the argument that would indicate the President would disagree or that would impact his reasoning negatively. (D) is incorrect simply because it provides more than what the argument strictly needs. The argument needs the low tuition explanation to be true, but not that there are also no other additional causes/explanations.

From your above post it appears that you treated it like a sufficient/justify question. Does that make sense?

Ahh, I see. I'm not sure why I couldn't wrap my head around this one but something you said sparked for me. Thanks!