Q24 - Many introductory undergradute science

[wei_qi_qi]

I am wondering why D is correct. If we negate D, then some of the students who are least enthusiastic are among the students most committed to being science major. However, it could be the case that these students did not pass the course, but those least enthusiastic and least committed students passed the course. Then the conclusion still stand.

[tombradyisgod]

I am wondering why D is correct. If we negate D, then some of the students who are least enthusiastic are among the students most committed to being science major. However, it could be the case that these students did not pass the course, but those least enthusiastic and least committed students passed the course. Then the conclusion still stand.

Purpose of proving grounds: Designed to be so demanding that only those students most committed to being science majors will receive passing grades in these courses.

C: Designing introductory science courses to serve as proving grounds has not served its intended purpose

Premise: Studies show that some of the students in these very demanding intro courses who are least enthusiastic about science receive passing grades in these courses.

There is a gap here between "most committed to being majors" and "least enthusiastic about science."

What if those who are least enthusiastic are most committed to being science majors? That would destroy the author's argument because the sole premise now becomes irrelevant.

In case you don't get what I'm saying, let's negate D and argue with the author: "If some of the students who are least enthusiastic are among the students most committed to being science majors, then how exactly are you concluding that the courses haven't fulfilled their purpose? Isn't it possible that some of the kids who were least enthusiastic about science and who weren't committed to being majors didn't pass the proving grounds classes, and those who were least enthusiastic but were most committed to being majors did pass?"

Therefore, (D) is necessary in order to fill the gap, and without it the argument doesn't hold.

[maryadkins]

Excellent explanation tombradyisgood. Thanks for sharing it!

To run through the others:

(A) is about the wrong group of people. We don't know anything about the people who are most enthusiastic about science, only that some who are the LEAST enthusiastic pass the courses. This is the group that needs to be proven less committed.

(B) isn't a necessary assumption because this argument is about one existing way of designing intro science courses and whether it's effective, not about what NEEDS to be done.

(C) is like (A), about the wrong group. The argument isn't relying on a claim about the most enthused kids; it is relying on a claim (and accompanying assumption) about the least enthused kids.

(E) is like (B). The argument isn't about what SHOULD happen, but whether an existing method has "served its intended purpose" or not. This is different than arguing what SHOULD happen.

[seychelles1718]

So I guess we can't really say there is a term shift between "committed" and "enthusiastic" as they are synonyms? Those two terms really jumped out.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm confused by your question. We CAN say there is a term shift; in fact, we must! That's the whole point of what this question is testing.

The correct answer, (D), is addressing that term shift.

[seychelles1718]

I'm confused by your question. We CAN say there is a term shift; in fact, we must! That's the whole point of what this question is testing.

The correct answer, (D), is addressing that term shift.

That's actually how I solved this question and picked D as my answer. When I did this Q first time, I immediately looked for the answer that addresses the term shift between 'enthusiastic' and 'committed.' But I asked my question earlier because other posters above say the shift exists between 'science MAJOR' and 'science'.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

We're talking about the same thing there. As the first explanation said,

There is a gap here between "most committed to being science majors" and "least enthusiastic about science."

What if those who are least enthusiastic are most committed to being science majors? That would destroy the author's argument because the sole premise now becomes irrelevant.

It was switching between "commitment vs. enthusiasm" and also switching between "in relation to being a science major vs. in relation to science"

The correct answer is getting both parts of that switch.

[WinstonM679]

Hi,

I appreciate the good discussions conducted in the previous posts. But my confusion as to why Answer Choice D can make a necessary assumption lingers.

Allow me to strip down and simplify the argument & the answer choice at issue, by rephrasing them in more abstract terms.

Premise A: Our rule states that ONLY those who possess Property X are allowed to pass through the door.

Premise B: Evidence shows that some people who exhibit Property Y have been allowed to pass.

Conclusion: Our rule as stated in Premise A has been violated!

Answer Choice D: No one who exhibit Property Y possesses Property X.

Negation of D: There is at least one person who exhibits both Poperties X and Y.

At this point, I’d like to thank you for having stayed with me this far. Now, to the extent this reformulation of the argument and its assumption is acceptable (please let me know if you think it doesn’t and why not), it would seem evident to me how answer choice D can make a good SUFFICIENT assumption. Yet the same may not be said about it being a necessary assumption. I mean there are tons of other ways of arriving at the conclusion without assuming what D says. For example, consider that those who were allowed to pass, while exhibiting Poperty B, HAPPENED to be the only ones without Property A.

Negation of D doesn’t seem to have completely destroyed the argument provided that we allow further assumptions to be made, for example, consider again the possibility that those Poperty B - exhibiting folks who were allowed to pass were the only ones of the Property B kind who didn’t possess Property A.

I guess I am having the same kind of doubts and confusion as the author of the first thread posted under this question. So reading through thoughts posted there may help you make sense of mine in case you wanna help and are feeling baffled by my rambling.

Best,
Winston