一道逻辑题: private & public high school

annzhang

According to a recent research study, more than 90% percent of graduates of private high schools in a certain county continue their education in college. By contrast, only 65% of graduates of public high schools subsequently pursue college education. Therefore, if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.

Which of the following statements would most seriously weaken the argument above?

		Graduates of private schools typically score higher on standardized tests and other tests of academic achievement.
		While private schools are typically very expensive, attendance of public school is free for the residents of the county.
		In comparison with graduates of private schools, a substantially greater proportion of public school graduates receive need-based financial aid for their college education.
		In comparison with private schools, public schools provide more opportunities for student involvement in sports and other athletic activities, which almost always increase the likelihood of students’ acceptance to colleges.
		Since most public schools are located in rural areas of the county populated primarily by farmers, nearly 30% of students from public high schools choose to pursue farming occupations rather than apply to colleges. 请教为什么C不对?我在C和E之间游离.因为需要助学金,所以公立高中的学生申请起来比私立高中的学生要难,这是外部因素,而非他们自身的学习能力与学习水平问题.虽然我觉得E也没什么问题,,,但模考的时候忍不住选了C...是因为外界信息干扰吗(例如中国国情的干扰)?   求指导! Thanks in advance!

sdcar2010

The percentage of need-based financial aid has nothing to do with the likelihood to attend college because the financial aid comes AFTER the admission.

annzhang

thanks so much for your reply. but i still get this question in my mind that how many public high school students choose not to attend a university if the scholarship isn't successfully applied? that will influence the university enrollment after all. or maybe i just think to much.

annzhang

还有木有人指教一下哒

yiayia

premise1:90% private--->college
             65% public------>college
premise2: increase the likelihood to go to college
conclusion: send children to private school.
E: public 30%会farming 我们可以排除这部分人，剩下70%，65%/70%>90%
premise2 不成立。likelihood 下降。

B: 楼主真心想过了，自己假设：进入大学=有钱+考的上

annzhang

精辟

yiayia

精辟

-- by 会员 annzhang (2012/3/17 20:05:40)

其实你没看懂sdcar大神的话。。。。sdcar大神的逻辑入门帖子翻来覆去看好几遍了。遇到难题看sdcar大神的解释都觉得好精辟。。我偶像啊

sdcar2010

其实你没看懂sdcar大神的话。。。。sdcar大神的逻辑入门帖子翻来覆去看好几遍了。遇到难题看sdcar大神的解释都觉得好精辟。。我偶像啊

-- by 会员 yiayia (2012/3/18 0:06:10)

知音啊！

比莉

yiayia 发表于 2012-3-17 19:55
premise1:90% private--->college              65% public------>col ...

2016年的我，找到你这个解释~真的太精辟啦！！！

ccp92

E其实提供了一个他因：

其实百分比相比是毫无意义的，因为你们比较的根本不是一类人

E说，其实公立学校能上大学的不是你学校之间的差异，是因为很多小孩子高中毕业之后帮助家长干农活去了