Question 6

Explanation

This question asks us to find a statement that weakens the Minister of Finance's argument.

Identifying the Argument

The Minister of Finance put forward two main reasons for the formation of LPDP:

1. The education fund allocation of $20\%$ from the State Budget is often not fully absorbed.
2. The fact that there is a lack (scarcity) of Indonesia's best students who can study at the best universities abroad.

Analyzing the Options

To weaken the argument, we must find a statement that refutes one of the premises or reasons above. The second argument states that the number of Indonesian students abroad is low (minimal/scarcity).

Let's check the options:

• Education fund allocation increases: This actually supports the background of the first reason (funds are getting bigger but not absorbed).
• Many best students can study at the best universities within the country: Irrelevant to the argument about studying abroad.
• Some of Indonesia's best students can study at the best universities abroad: The word "some" can still be consistent with "minimal" (few), so it is not strong enough to weaken.
• Education fund allocation is not fully absorbed: This repeats the first reason, so it supports rather than weakens.
• Many of Indonesia's best students can study at the best universities abroad: This statement directly contradicts the second reason. If in fact "many" can study abroad, then the claim that the number is "minimal" becomes invalid, making the reason for creating the endowment fund based on that premise weak.

The statement "Many of Indonesia's best students can study at the best universities abroad" is a direct negation of the premise "lack of Indonesia's best students who can study abroad".

Therefore, the correct answer is Many of Indonesia's best students can study at the best universities abroad.