Q18 - Psychologist: Phonemic awareness

[rohanw2000]

I didn't quite understand how to break down the question stem in this one. I'd appreciate some help!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a great one! Thanks for bringing it up!

There are three connecting points here.

1. Phonemic awareness is essential for learning to read an alphabetic language.

2. In order for phonemic awareness to translate into an ability to read an alphabetic language, you need to know how sounds are symbolically represented by means of letters.

3. Yet many people who are taught by the whole-language method learn to read alphabetic languages.

So how did that third point come to pass? in order for the whole-language students to learn to read an alphabetic language, they'd need to meet the requirement of learning how sounds are symbolically represented by means of letters. Answer choices (D) and (E) are both tempting, but (E) is too specific/precise. In the end, we can infer only (D).

Incorrect Answers
(A) is too strong. We don't know that those students learn this directly from the whole-language method.
(B) reverses the logic. This answer mistakes a necessary condition (representing sounds by means of letters) for a sufficient one.
(C) negates the logic. The argument asserts that those who have the ability to read alphabetic language have phonemic awareness.
(E) is too strong. We don't know that those students learn this directly from the whole-language method.

#officialexplanation

[NatalieC941]

I still don't understand how E is "too strong."

The only word that sounds extreme is "succeeds" - is this why we should eliminate it?

The way I saw it, children who are taught by the whole-language method and then learn to read alphabetic languages require 1. emphasis on sound (phonemic awareness), which is automatically included in whole-language method and 2. learn how sounds are represented in letters.

By this logic, don't students have to have succeeded in learning how to represent sounds symbolically by means of letters?

The justification above isn't doing it for me just yet...

[ohthatpatrick]

You nailed it: "succeeds in teaching" is the claim that's too strong.

What YOU said is totally inferrable:
By this logic, don't students have to have succeeded in learning how to represent sounds symbolically by means of letters?


Yes!

But it doesn't need to be true that the whole-language method was the teacher!

Perhaps the whole-language method helped the students get phonemic awareness,
and Sesame Street helped them get symbolic-letter-awareness.

If I say "Many people who have attended Harvard learn to fly a fighter jet", we can't infer that Harvard "succeeded in teaching" them how to fly a fighter jet.

Meanwhile, we CAN infer that Harvard "did not impede" them from learning how to fly a fighter jet.

Hope this appeases.

[LizS111]

Hey can someone diagram out the conditional logic in this stimulus fully and not just paraphrase it -- I am having a lot of trouble.

I have:

Sentence 1:
Read alphabetic language --> Phonemic awareness

Sentence 2:
-(Learn how sounds represented via letters) --> -(Phonemic awareness) aka Phonemic awareness --> learn how sounds represented.

**can chain first two sentences together so it's:
Read alphabetic language --> Phonemic awareness --> learn how sounds represented

Sentence 3: *not a conditional due to qualifier many* but we do see a general reversal in the previous logic, namely, how do kids who have learned whole language method go from whole language method which emphasizes how words sound to reading alphabetic language.


We can infer D because if whole language is can lead to reading an alphabetic language then it necessarily follows that they have learned phonemic awareness and how sounds are represented?

[Laura Damone]

Hi! Forgive the delay here. We had a technical difficulty that caused a TON of posts to get buried and we're just now sifting through them. I LOVE this question, so I'm happy you asked about it!

OK, you're spot on about Sentence 1:
Read alphabetic language --> Phonemic awareness

But the first half of sentence 2 introduces another necessary condition ("But one also needs...") for the same sufficient condition: learning to read an alphabetic language:
Read alphabetic language --> Learn how sounds represented via letters

The second half of sentence 2 tells us that the first necessary condition is not sufficient in the absence of the second:
Phenom Aware + NOT learning how letters represent sounds --> NOT learn to read alphabetic language

You're also correct that Sentence 3 is not a conditional due to quantifier "many."

"Many" translates to "some" which I diagram as a line with an S underneath. I don't use an arrow, because "some" statements are inherently reversible. If some students at Gorman High get good grades, some people who get good grades are students at Gorman High.

Whole language method ---some--- Learn to read alphabetic language

So, what can we infer?

Well, we can make a chain with a "some" statement and an "all" statement as long as the "some" statement is the first link in the chain.

Whole language method --some-- Learn to read alphabetic language --> Phonemic awareness AND learns how letters represent sounds.

Answer choice D is contained within that chain: some learners of the whole language method aren't prevented from learning how letters represent sounds.

Takeaways:
1. A single sentence can contain multiple diagrammable clauses. Break it down and diagram each separately.
2. Treat "many" like "some" and diagram with a line, not an arrow, because it's reversible.
3. You can chain "some" statements to conditional statements, as long as the "some" statement is the first link in the chain.
4. The right answer for a Must Be True Inference question has to tell a true story, but it doesn't have to tell the whole story. The correct answer might describe one piece of a bigger inference, and that's OK!

Hope this helps!