Q19 - Science teacher: An abstract knowledge

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
The argument concludes that secondary school science courses should teach students to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practice issues. This is because the skills taught in secondary schools should be useful and an abstract knowledge of science is very seldom useful.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument assumes that evaulating science-based arguments regarding practice issues is useful.

Correct Answer:
(E)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) is too strong. Why need the skills be the most useful? Useful alone is plenty.

(B) undermines the argument. This would advocate for abstract knowledge over practical issues.

(C) is out of scope. This is an irrelevant comparison.

(D) is out of scope. What schools should do and what they actually do is completely different.

(E) is correct. This links the unconnected terms within the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern: Reasoning: Conditional Logic

#officialexplanation

[at9037]

What does the argument core for this arugment look like? Which one is the main conclusion and which one is the intermediate conclusion?

[ohthatpatrick]

In the explanation above, the argument core is the part of the explanation called the Stimulus Breakdown.

Stimulus Breakdown:
The argument concludes that secondary school science courses should teach students to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practice issues. This is because the skills taught in secondary schools should be useful and an abstract knowledge of science is very seldom useful.


So the first sentence there was the Conclusion. The second sentence had a pair of Premises.

There is no intermediate conclusion in this argument that I see. Were you asking that because you thought you saw one, or are you thinking any paragraph this long must have more than one conclusion?

Neither of the two Premises are a reason for believing the other one.

"Abstract knowledge of science is rarely useful"
why?
"because the skills taught in secondary schools should be useful"?

That doesn't make sense, and neither does the other way around. They just act in tandem to push us towards the conclusion.

[jiangziou]

How come the reasoning is Conditional Logic?

[ohthatpatrick]

That teacher sees most of Logical Reasoning as testing one of three ways of thinking:
- CONDITIONAL THINKING
- CAUSAL THINKING
- COMPARATIVE THINKING

If the question is testing some
"term shift = missing bridge idea"
then he'll think of it as testing conditional thinking.

Because this question involved hunting down a missing link between "evaluating practical science arguments" and "useful for typical adult decisions", he's calling it conditional.