Q11 - Most universities today offer students

[pinkdatura]

Correct me if I get the stimulus wrong:


before now: exclusiveness in history course
now history courses no longer have such limitation (exclusiveness)
conclusion: now: most univ in-dept cosmo edu

A,B irrelevant
C right in link in-depth and ~exclusiveness
D other subject area?
E course alone?

[noah]

You got it! Nice work. I've polished it up a bit for the public (mostly trimmed the core and fleshed out the answer explanations: [quote="pinkdatura + noah"]
The core: history courses no longer have such limitation (exclusiveness) --> now: most univ in-depth & cosmo. edu

There's a gap between exclusivity and being cosmopolitan and in-depth. Perhaps the course discusses these other places but is still very provincial. (C) links being culturally inclusive to being more cosmopolitan and in depth.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is out of scope - interesting?
(B) is irrelevant - study abroad? How many is "many"? Perhaps that means 24 students? And, even so, how does that connect the premise to the conclusion?
(D) is out of scope - other subject areas?
(E) is tempting. But we don't need to know about what happens if you don't have a culturally inclusive curriculum. We need to know what happens if you get one - specifically, do you become more cosmopolitan and in depth?

[haeaznboiyoung]

Can you help me clarify a bit more on why E is wrong?

I originally went with E thinking it strengthend the example given. The example says that until recently history courses required limited culture reading and because univ no longer do this they offer more in depth and cosmo. And E would strengthen it by confirming that, I read E as courses that only offer limited culture will not suffice for cosmo and in depth. But now I realize it does not play on the conclusion at all, that is that univ simply offer more in depth and cosmo. But I feel as though my logic is still lacking somewhere...

[noah]

You got it. In fact, I like your explanation better than mine and so I'm going to edit my explanation of (E).

If we're arguing that

NOT X --> More Z,

than it doesn't matter if X --> less Z

Or, to put some content to that:

I'm getting healthier because I'm eating more vegetables.

Is this strengthened by "If you don't eat vegetables, you won't be healthy"?

No, we still don't know that eating the veggies will help.

Tell me if you still are unclear, but nice work - and thanks!

[haeaznboiyoung]

Thank YOU for the confirmation!

[vik]

I would not say b is irrelevant. Study abroad leads to cosmo education.

[noah]

I would not say b is irrelevant. Study abroad leads to cosmo education.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think it's a bit of a leap, but you might be right. Another way to eliminate this answer is to consider that "many" doesn't mean "most" students are enjoying this feature. Also, if anything, this simply gives another example of education being more cosmopolitan, it doesn't strengthen the connection between the premise and conclusion.

[LSAT-Chang]

You got it. In fact, I like your explanation better than mine and so I'm going to edit my explanation of (E).

If we're arguing that

NOT X --> More Z,

than it doesn't matter if X --> less Z

Or, to put some content to that:

I'm getting healthier because I'm eating more vegetables.

Is this strengthened by "If you don't eat vegetables, you won't be healthy"?

No, we still don't know that eating the veggies will help.

Tell me if you still are unclear, but nice work - and thanks!

Hey Noah, I really like your example you gave above. But a quick question I had was, if we had it the other way around, won't it strengthen it? So if we had:

"If you don't eat vegetables, you won't be healthy"

won't this be strengthened if we had an answer choice that said:

"I became healthy as a result of eating vegetables"

or am I assuming something I shouldn't on my part? I can see that a better answer would be something like "Sam never ate vegetables, and as a result he is not healthy" -- but any thoughts on the above comment>?

[LSAT-Chang]

Just to add something about answer choice (E): we are never told in the stimulus that the textbooks used in most universities today cover the history of a "single culture" -- I think this is a trap answer since at first I assumed that the textbooks were about a single culture as well -- but all we are told is that it hardly mentions the history of Africa or Asia after the ancient periods. For all we know, it could still talk about TWO or THREE different cultures and still have it be that it isn't enough to be "culturally inclusive."

[joseph.m.kirby]

We know that the argument in the stimulus proceeds by:

Evidence: most universities are now more inclusive of other cultures
-----
Conclusion: most universities today offer students a more in-depth and cosmopolitan education

Answer choice (E) reverses the logic:

~inclusive of other cultures --> ~in-depth and cosmopolitan

or

in-depth and cosmopolitan --> inclusive of other cultures
(Evidence) -(leads to)-> (conclusion)

(E) does not strengthen the argument as its logic is not applicable to the argument.

[nthakka]

To add to (B): How do we know that courses that don't include these histories of Africa/Asia do NOT have students that study abroad? This AC tells us something that these new courses are doing, but we can't make the assumption that the old courses didn't have kids going to study abroad.

We need to make the connection between "more in depth/cosmopolitan" education and "more indepth textbooks". The author is assuming that because these textbooks require these readings, education is more in depth/cosmopolitan. Is the content of the book indicative of the cosmopolitan and in depth education? Maybe kids aren't actually reading these books or required to read them? Maybe these new tidbits are in the end of each section and teachers don't actually assign these readings due to limited time?

We don't know. (C) fills the gap by pointing out that the books indicate the degree of cosmopolitan education.

[wgutx08]

Just want to add that I feel D actually weakens-- a little bit, at least.

The conclusion is not about history education alone but just general education. History is used as an example. D suggests it is not a very representative example in this context and thus weakens the argument.

What do you guys think

[timsportschuetz]

I believe that the above explanations for E are great, however, I believe they may miss a CRUCIAL structural point of the argument.

Although conditional reasoning is a valid attempt at solving this question, it is actually a causal argument.

It states that the "culturally inclusive history textbooks" cause the universities to be more cosmopolitan.

In order to strengthen a causal argument, you can:
1) Eliminate potential other cause;
2) Show that cause and effect cannot be reversed;
3) Show that when the cause occurs the effect occurs;
4) Show that when the cause is absent the effect is absent.
5) Show that the causal connection is valid.

The correct answer (C) uses method 5. It simply solidifies the argument by showing that the causal connection is valid.

[tommywallach]

Hey Wgutx,

Totally agreed. Answer choice (D) does weaken the argument very slightly, because the education in history can be better without the overall education being better.

(And great breakdown of causal connections, Tim!)

-t

[kjjida9797]

I initially got down to C & E, and chose E
After looking back, i realized why E is wrong choice. Just wanted to check if my analysis is correct.

The most important word in the stimulus is a MORE in-depth and cosmopolitan education than ever before. The more implies that we are concerned with the degree of comparison from past to present. However E) is more, if not only, concerned with the presence of in-depth and cosmopolitan education where as in B), it specifically states 'the extent to which students at those blah blah'. This phrase clearly shows that B is concerned with the degree of the matter.

Is this analysis correct?

[hstler1]

I'd like to insert my own view of why E could potentially be wrong, and that is because it is a potential weakener. The premise as many have stated above, is about how "most uni's history classes no longer display such limitations", thus by using E we it appears as though we're saying : alright it isn't enough to have an inclusive history class to guarantee the relationship between "being more inclusive and something being in-depth and cosmopolitan"!

Let me know if this makes sense and or adds to other reason why this answer is wrong!

[HadisA912]

Hello Tommy,

I don't agree with (D) even slightly weakening the argument.

The text states that general education offered at universities is more in depth / cosmopolitan than ever before.

Let D be true, which means, history courses are more inclusive in general but not all other subjects are necessarily more inclusive.

So, still, in a world in which D is true, education can still be better than ever before because:

Keeping education in all subjects EXCLUDING history the same level as before, and increasing inclusiveness ONLY in history, is already BETTER than the education offer has ever been before. Why?

We keep all courses equal, but have a better education in history. Thus, now is better than before.

That is already enough, no?

Thanks