In the question at hand, the passage essentially makes the case that home economics has practical application after high school but is not a required course, while other subjects may rarely come up after high school but are required for students to take.


We gain no insight from the passage into what students might of their own volition sign up for. This answer is purely speculative.


I think this would be a better trap answer without the second part. That is, the passage paints a negative picture of mathematics and history, in terms of their daily applicability to life (for people in general), so this answer choice seems off in casting the same courses in a positive light, and I think many test-takers would pick up on the latter clue. But not to be overlooked is the earlier overstatement that home economics would be the most useful subject to study. This notion is not supported by the passage. It only seems that a knowledge of home economics would help people in their daily lives more than that of mathematics or history.


There is nothing to argue with here. The passage supports everything within the conditional statement. Notice that there is no language in this answer choice that is too strong—home economics should be made an important part of the curriculum, not the most important part or some such.


Again, this is too strong. The passage is not calling for other subjects to fall by the wayside, only for home economics, by way of suggestion, to play a more prominent role in education than it does.


How many times can I say that something is too strong? Words such as never are almost always overreaching. We cannot know what high school graduates will feel about decision-making after graduation, with or without home economics at their back.

The process of elimination should help you considerably on this type of question. To reiterate, your goal is to find the answer choice that most logically follows from the information in the passage, not to prove anything.

Answer: C