Question

The prestigious Larchmont High School recently introduced a new magnet program for advanced STEM students. Over the past few months, the school has seen a sharp rise in enrollment, and several teachers have noted that classroom resources are becoming stretched. They argue that if the magnet program were relocated to a separate campus, both the STEM students and the general student body would have a better educational experience. Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reasons given for that conclusion?

• A. The STEM students would prefer the focused environment of a separate campus.
• B. Students do not enrol in the general program as extensively as those in the magnet program.
• C. Students are frustrated with the limited access to school resources.
• D. Other local schools have begun to offer similar STEM programs.
• E. The increase in enrollment is primarily due to the introduction of the STEM magnet program.

Hint:

To test if a statement is a necessary assumption, use the Negation Test. Negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart. If we negate (E), "The increase in enrollment is NOT primarily due to the STEM program," the conclusion to relocate the program becomes illogical. Therefore, (E) is a necessary assumption.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Understanding the Concept
This is an Assumption question. An assumption is a necessary, unstated premise that connects the evidence to the conclusion. We must identify the logical gap and find the statement that bridges it.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation
Let's break down the argument:

Evidence 1: A new STEM magnet program was introduced.
Evidence 2: Enrollment has risen sharply.
Evidence 3: Resources are stretched.
Conclusion: Relocating the magnet program would solve the problem and improve education for everyone.
The Gap: The argument connects the problem (enrollment rise, resource strain) to the STEM program and proposes a solution targeting the STEM program. This only makes sense if the STEM program is the *cause* of the problem. The argument never explicitly states this; it merely notes that the two events happened around the same time. The unstated assumption is that the STEM program is the reason for the increased enrollment.
Step 3: Final Answer
Let's analyze the options:

(A), (B), (C) might be true, but they are not necessary for the argument's logic. The argument is about resources, not student preferences, enrollment patterns in the general program, or current frustration levels.
(D) This would offer an alternative reason for Larchmont's enrollment increase (competition), weakening the argument.
(E) This directly states the missing causal link. If the enrollment increase is *not* due to the STEM program, then relocating the STEM program would do nothing to solve the problem of overcrowding and resource strain. Therefore, for the conclusion to be valid, the author must assume that the STEM program is the primary cause of the enrollment increase.
Option (E) is the necessary assumption that connects the observed problem to the proposed solution.