Official Explanation

The conclusion is that the government has “practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget." The basis for that claim is that Pell grants improve access to higher education, which allows lower-income students to improve their economic standing. The main assumption this argument relies on is that Pell grants are the only means available to lower-income students who wish to access higher education. The correct answer will weaken the conclusion by contradicting this assumption.

(A) CORRECT. If total spending on access to higher education will increase, then the federal government has addressed the issue that the author cites, albeit through means other than Pell Grants.

(B) Whether candidates for Pell grants are aware of their eligibility is irrelevant to the claim that the government has practiced bad public policy.

(C) This choice may sound like a counterargument (that Congress is somehow practicing good public policy by authorizing a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities) to the argument presented (that the government is practicing bad public policy by failing to safeguard Pell grants). However, we have no evidence that after-school programs in urban communities help low-income students afford higher education, so this does not weaken the argument presented by the author.

(D) The dollar amount of the Pell grants is irrelevant. To this argument, it matters only that they provide some help at all.

(E) Increased spending on education as a percentage of the total budget does not necessarily imply that low-income students will have better access to higher education. In fact, it does not even imply that education spending (in dollars) will increase.

Answer: A