Q14 - It is a sad fact

[WaltGrace1983]

Tuition requirement is replaced by a neighborhood requirement
→
Parents who didn't have the option of sending their kids to this school now have that option

There is a big gap here. Couldn't it be the case that the same exact people who both (1) go to school there and (2) could pay the high tuition are same exact people who are in the neighborhood around the school? What if the school has 300 kids and the neighborhood around the school has 300 kids, all of whom attend the school currently. This would create no difference in the parents who are able to send their kids to this school. Better yet, what if the school has 300 kids and the neighborhood has only 200 kids, all of whom attend the school currently. This would actually destroy the argument!

Thus, the argument is assuming that there is at least one set of parents who live in the neighborhood surrounding the school and could not previously afford to send their kids to this school.

(A) Tricky! This is saying that the neighborhood residents tend to be wealthy. Do we need to assume this? Couldn't it be the case that the residents themselves are not wealthy but someone else pays for their house and their kids' education? In addition to this, think about the argument. It is saying that the high school "has been restricted to people who were wealthy enough." This argument is talking all about relativity. Is the argument saying that the people who can afford to send their kids to this school are wealthy? No, just that they are wealthy enough. This is a big difference. Maybe the tuition is $100 a semester. By today's standards, that is very cheap yet this wouldn't preclude the principle from saying something like "you have to be wealthy enough to pay the tuition in order to go here."

(C) "In the majority" ruins this answer choice for me. This is basically saying that the people who couldn't pay the old tuition will now be in the majority in the new district. Does district = neighborhood? Let's say it does and continue our analysis with this assumption (which always should make you a little apprehensive in these types of questions). So we say, "the people who couldn't pay the old tuition will now be in the majority in the neighborhood." So what? We don't need to conclude this! All we need to say is that there are some parents who didn't have the opportunity before who now do, even if that means just 1% of the neighborhood.

(D) This has no bearing on the argument. We aren't caring about other high schools.

(E) We don't care about "wishes." That also has no bearing on the argument.

(B) is right! This attacks the gap that we saw and it basically says "there is at least one set of parents that previously couldn't pay for the tuition but live in the neighborhood."

[dragonliwenxu]

B is insufficient as an assumption.

Even if poor people "are able to live in", it is possible that no one actually live in, in which case the policy still does not have the effect.