PrepTest 132, Section 2, Question 25
University president: Our pool of applicants has been(72 more words not shown)
The university president's argument requires(3 more words not shown)
- Athe proposed explanation(9 more words not shown)
- Bthe quality of(14 more words not shown)
- Can increase in(12 more words not shown)
- Dthere is no(8 more words not shown)
- Ethe amount charged(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why are fewer people applying? Perhaps students have better job options, prefer other universities, or are responding to something specific about this school. A shrinking pool tells us there's a problem, not what caused it.
The president proposes an interesting explanation: low prices make the education look low-quality. I'm willing to consider that. But even if price affects the school's image, why must raising tuition be the way to attract more applicants?
What about recruiting? Representatives could visit high schools, or the university could send information to students who otherwise wouldn't consider it. A better-known football program might draw attention too. Those aren't guaranteed solutions; they're other possibilities the president hasn't ruled out. Cheap tuition could even be a selling point when prospective students hear what the school offers.
What we’re looking for
My initial reaction is that the president treats a price increase as necessary without considering other ways to reach students. The question asks for an assumption the argument requires, so let's look for something the reasoning cannot do without.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This catches an even earlier problem: the proposed explanation must actually apply here. The president initially calls low tuition one possible explanation, then recommends addressing it as though it explains the decline.
If low tuition isn't contributing to the problem, this reasoning gives us no basis for saying a tuition increase is needed. Imagine students already rejecting the school at $20,000 for reasons unrelated to price. Charging $30,000 doesn't address those reasons merely because a price-based explanation was possible. A is a basic commitment the argument needs, even before we debate other solutions.
- B
Actual educational quality and people's perceptions of quality are different. The argument concerns what students and parents infer from the price. It doesn't require higher tuition to produce better teaching, or educational quality to depend on tuition at all.
- C
The president calls a price increase necessary for enlarging the applicant pool. That doesn't commit the president to saying it guarantees success. An increase could be needed alongside other changes and still fail if those other changes don't happen.
- D
Low tuition could contribute to the shrinking pool while other explanations also apply. Perhaps the school has weak recruiting or an unpopular location too. The argument needs its proposed explanation to apply; it doesn't need every other explanation to be false. Don't confuse ruling out other causes with considering other possible solutions.
- E
Tuition could have risen recently and still be low compared with competing schools. The argument turns on the current perceived price and its alleged effect on applications, not on an unchanged price history. E isn't something the reasoning requires.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.