Q26 - The number of applications for

[zhangstagangsta]

I chose E, and I´m not sure why it´s wrong. Could someone explain how it weakens the argument?

[noah]

The conclusion of this argument is that interest in art history careers has declined recently among US grads. Why? Because the number of applications reported by US art history PhD programs has declined recently.

In short, this conclusion explains the decline in applications--and our debater mind should be saying "but couldn't there be another reason?" Indeed there could be.This is a weaken EXCEPT question, so there are lots of gaps, or at least lots of ways to exploit the same gap. Let's take a look:

(A) weakens -- this gives another reason: data reporting has changed.

(B) does not weaken the argument. It's tempting to think this does because we might think "oh, the number of applicants is dropping, but it's the old people that are no longer applying--maybe the college grads still are. However, perhaps recent grads are also getting older (aren't more people taking a "gap year" these days?). Plus, maybe the average age has changed because it used to be that 1/4 of the applicants were 50 year-olds, but now they've been replaced with 70 year-olds.

(C) is similar to (A) - data reporting is off.

(D) is another reason the applications are down. Folks are interested in art history careers, but they're not getting PhDs.

(E) weakens this argument by playing on the place of origin of the applicants. Let's put some numbers to this story:

1999: 100 Ph.D. applicants (to North American programs)
2000: 90
2001: 80
2002: 70

If these programs only took North American graduates, we might be able to say that interest has waned. However, let's add in the idea that Europeans are part of the pool, and have that percentage decrease substantially (as (E) suggests):

1999: 100 (of which 80 were Europeans)
2000: 90 (of which 40 were Europeans)
2001: 80 (of which 20 were Europeans)
2002: 70 (of which 10 were Europeans)

Here, we can see that the number of North American graduates applying actually increased.

[mrudula_2005]

How does B not weaken the argument? If the average age of applicants is increasing over that same time period that the number of apps to the PhD programs is decreasing, it could indicate that recent North American college and university graduates do in fact have an interest in choosing art history as a career, but increasingly people are just waiting longer to attend the PhD program (so they are buying into the trend as well and that's why numbers of apps have gone down)....With B, the author of the argument's conclusion about "recent North American college and university graduates" would be weakened, no?

Thanks!

[noah]

With B, the author of the argument's conclusion about "recent North American college and university graduates" would be weakened, no?

Good question. However, (B) doesn't clear up the issue of where those applicants are coming from. Perhaps the average age is increasing because a bunch of Italian octogenarians finally want to learn about art history and apply.

One general note: With your thinking, you had to "add in" the idea that being older doesn't necessarily mean you weren't interested earlier. If you have to add in something extra to make the answer choice work (or in this case, not work), be wary. You could just as easily think "if they're getting older, they're not interested" as you could think "the applicants getting older doesn't mean they're not interested, perhaps they're just waiting."

Also, who is to say what is the age recent undergraduates? That's another bit of outside knowledge that would be needed to make (B) weaken.
Does that make sense? - Noah

[farhadshekib]

Hmm...fascinating... I choose (E) as well, but it appears that (E) actually boils down to simple cause and effect reasoning.

Cause:

Loss of interest among recent North American college + uni graduates in choosing art history as a career.

Effect:

Less applicants to North American Ph.D. programs.

(E) actually offers an alternate cause for the stated effect.

Cause:

less foreign applicants to North American Ph.D. programs.

Effect:

Less applications received by North American Ph.D. programs.

So simple...yet i still make stupid mistakes...

[timmydoeslsat]

Yeah, the argument is assuming that interest (lack thereof) is causing the applications to decrease. We know that it could be a multitude of things.

I think another answer choice, which I am surprised was not on there, is something about cost being an issue. It is not that the interest isn't there, it is the cost.

[nlynes]

What about D? How does D weaken the argument? It is referring to individuals without a Ph.D.

Thanks

[nlynes]

I think I might have just figured it out. Is it because they arent going into the Ph.D program and just getting jobs. This would then cause a decline in admissions for the art history Ph.D program?

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

Very good job on figuring this one out. We are told that the number of applications have declined in each of the past 4 years in NA phd programs, so we conclude that interest in choosing art as a career has declined among recent NA college grads.

D weakens due to the idea that they are being offered jobs in art history without the phd. So these hirees still obviously have art as a career interest. They simply have an opportunity that was not as prevalent four years ago. This shows the decline was not due to lack of interest in having a career in art. These people are simply going into a career in art sooner than usual!

[nflamel69]

The conclusion of this argument is that interest in art history careers has declined recently among US grads. Why? Because the number of applications reported by US art history PhD programs has declined recently.

In short, this conclusion explains the decline in applications--and our debater mind should be saying "but couldn't there be another reason?" Indeed there could be.This is a weaken EXCEPT question, so there are lots of gaps, or at least lots of ways to exploit the same gap. Let's take a look:

(A) weakens -- this gives another reason: data reporting has changed.

(B) does not weaken the argument. It's tempting to think this does because we might think "oh, the number of applicants is dropping, but it's the old people that are no longer applying--maybe the college grads still are. However, perhaps recent grads are also getting older (aren't more people taking a "gap year" these days?). Plus, maybe the average age has changed because it used to be that 1/4 of the applicants were 50 year-olds, but now they've been replaced with 70 year-olds.

(C) is similar to (A) - data reporting is off.

(D) is another reason the applications are down. Folks are interested in art history careers, but they're not getting PhDs.

(E) weakens this argument by playing on the place of origin of the applicants. Let's put some numbers to this story:

1999: 100 Ph.D. applicants (to North American programs)
2000: 90
2001: 80
2002: 70

If these programs only took North American graduates, we might be able to say that interest has waned. However, let's add in the idea that Europeans are part of the pool, and have that percentage decrease substantially (as (E) suggests):

1999: 100 (of which 80 were Europeans)
2000: 90 (of which 40 were Europeans)
2001: 80 (of which 20 were Europeans)
2002: 70 (of which 10 were Europeans)

Here, we can see that the number of North American graduates applying actually increased.

I chose E as well. The problem I see with E is that how can you sure what caused the decreased in percentage of applications from outside of North America? It could be the case like you suggested, but you added the assumption that the base numbers stay the same. but it could also be the case that North america applications decreased more than outside of North America, therefore the percentage decreased. However, in my scenario, it would actually strengthen the conclusion. I agree that E has a possibility of weakening the argument, but it's not certain. Is this the difference between normal weaken and EXCEPT weaken questions?

Can any geeks answer this?

[noah]

I chose E as well. The problem I see with E is that how can you sure what caused the decreased in percentage of applications from outside of North America? It could be the case like you suggested, but you added the assumption that the base numbers stay the same. but it could also be the case that North america applications decreased more than outside of North America, therefore the percentage decreased. However, in my scenario, it would actually strengthen the conclusion. I agree that E has a possibility of weakening the argument, but it's not certain. Is this the difference between normal weaken and EXCEPT weaken questions?

Can any geeks answer this?

Before we try to make a rule about the strength of EXCEPT weaken answers, do you feel comfortable with this argument:

# of art history Ph.d applications dropped overall and from applicants outside the North America, THEREFORE interest among North Americans in art history programs has dropped.

It doesn't seem to me that the premises lead very definitively to the conclusion. Does a weakener have to destroy the argument? No.

[nflamel69]

So all we need is a possible way to weaken the argument and not a definitive way? I can see the way you see the answer can weaken the argument, but I think we can both agree it doesn't definitively weaken it.

[noah]

So all we need is a possible way to weaken the argument and not a definitive way? I can see the way you see the answer can weaken the argument, but I think we can both agree it doesn't definitively weaken it.

Yup, a weaken answer doesn't have to 100% make the argument unworkable, just, well, weaken it.

[perad-16]

just to add into the explanation of why B is correct. I just took this section and got this one wrong, but when I thought about this question for a second it seemed obvious.

Answer (B) states that "the average age" increased, which would actually strengthen the conclusion that states "interest among recent NA college and university graduates in choosing art history as a career has declined" if you consider attending a Ph.D program a career in art history as this argument tacitly assumes.

Think about it, if the average age has increased while the overall number of applications has decreased, then this could mean that recent graduates, and thus younger aged, students have applied for less Ph.D. positions bringing the average age up and thus strengthening the argument.

Is this correct thinking? Or is there a more consistent way to answer this question correctly?

[NikkiY152]

I chose E and kind of can see why E is wrong. But I have second thoughts about D.

D says more employers are willing to hire people without PhD. But how could it relate to the employees? It is so unrelated and straying too much from the point if the answer want us to see more people without PhD are hired then less are applying for PhD.

It is my first time writing a post, please forgive me for the wrong logic if any, thanks!