Q3 - Teacher: Participating in organized

[alber.lin]

I am confused with why B is not correct.

Doesn't the critic's argument refute this sentence?
Or the teacher's attempt is not to refute?
Or what the critic points out is not a counterargument?

Could someone help with this question? Thanks in advance.

[maryadkins]

The teacher's argument can be broken down as follows:

-sports may increase strength and coord.

-but they also makes some kids feel inferior

-however, inferior-feeling adults are more successful!

-therefore: it's okay, let's not cut funding for sports.

So basically, her argument boils down to (2) points in favor of sports and (1) against, which she knocks down. The first point in favor of sports--that they increase strength and coordination--is the one we're trying to place.

(B), (D), and (E) all put this point on the wrong side of her argument--against sports funding. She's arguing FOR sports funding. This point is in favor of sports. So we can knock these out right away.

(C) is incorrect because she does not offer additional support for this hypothesis. She changes the subject to inferiority.

(A) is correct. It's one reason to keep sports funding, which she offers, followed by another one--that inferior adults are more successful (sad).

Hope that helps!

[alovitt]

I eliminated A because I didn't think it was correct to say "a reason for adopting a policy" as I don't see that as being equivalent to "should not be eliminated." The should not be eliminated implies that there is already funding, so adopting a policy seems out of scope, since there presumably is a policy intact (the funding which shouldn't be eliminated). I selected D. But since A also lists it as a reason, the major difference is whether or not it is properly characterized as insufficient. It seemed to me that the teacher clearly thinks it is insufficient by itself, since it also provides benefits. What is wrong with my reasoning here?

[timmydoeslsat]

I eliminated A because I didn't think it was correct to say "a reason for adopting a policy" as I don't see that as being equivalent to "should not be eliminated." The should not be eliminated implies that there is already funding, so adopting a policy seems out of scope, since there presumably is a policy intact (the funding which shouldn't be eliminated). I selected D. But since A also lists it as a reason, the major difference is whether or not it is properly characterized as insufficient. It seemed to me that the teacher clearly thinks it is insufficient by itself, since it also provides benefits. What is wrong with my reasoning here?

These are good thoughts, but let's go over some things.

The use of "adopting a policy" can be seen as referring to the idea of continuing to fund children athletic programs.

There is a slight distinction there. This answer choice is not saying that this is a reason to start one, rather to keep it going. A reason for adopting a policy for not eliminating the programs.

This argument presented give us initially a positive note about competitive sports for kids. Then we get this transitory note about the critics saying something bad about the competitive sports for kids.

It is often true that the speaker will agree with the critics, but instead, the speaker says another good thing about the competitive sports for kids.

If anything, choice D would represent the role of what the critics stated. That, in the speaker's argument, is insufficient for eliminating the programs.

The question stem asks us what role did the first sentence perform in the argument. Well, it was one of two positive notes for the competitive sports for kids.

[maryadkins]

Also, (D) mischaracterizes the statement.

Why would we eliminate any policy BECAUSE it increases children's strength and coordination? Not even the critics suggest this.

(A) correctly characterizes the statement at issue as a positive feature of the policy, not a negative one.

[faronowitz]

I originally chose D because I think I misunderstood what D was saying. I interpreted "an insufficient reason" to mean "not a good reason," which made sense to me because clearly if organized sports may increase strength and coordination, then it's not a good reason for eliminating funding for children's programs. Where did I go wrong in my thought process?

[ohthatpatrick]

Hmmm, I see how you were thinking about that.

Let's say you're considering going to Harvard.

Pros -
great education
grads tend to make a lot of money

Cons -
super expensive tuition

Would it be "most accurate" to say that
'great education' was cited as an insufficient reason for not going to Harvard?

No, that's a weird way of saying why I brought up 'great education'.

A more accurate description would be to say that
'great education' was cited as a reason for going to Harvard

In order to get the phrasing of (D), we would need to hear something like this:
Person 1: "You shouldn't go to Harvard"
Person 2: "Why?"
Person 1: "Because you'll get a great education."
Person 2: "Well that seems like a bad reason for why I shouldn't go to Harvard."

The problem is that the above conversation didn't happen in my original example.

Instead, I was portraying 'great education' as a reason you SHOULD go to Harvard.

Similarly, in the argument of Q3, the fact that athletics may increase strength and coordination is a reason we WOULD WANT athletic programs.

It's not portrayed as a reason for eliminating athletic programs.

The second sentence, which DOES provide a reason for eliminating athletic programs, is prefaced by 'however', telling us that it does NOT go in the same direction as the first sentence.

So while (D) says something true ... "the fact that sports may increase kids' strength and coordination is NOT a good reason for eliminating sports programs", it is not the most accurate description of that first sentence because no one was offering that as a reason for eliminating sports programs.

What (D) is actually describing is the 2nd sentence. Had they asked us about the role of that sentence, (D) would have been the correct answer.

Hope this helps.