Q8 - The laboratory experiment, the most

[kimnamil14]

At my first try, I did choose E without really thinking about other choices. But now that I look back at them, I'm not 100% sure why choices A and C are incorrect. I think both A and C weaken the conclusion to certain degree, since both suggest that computer simulations might help students. Are they wrong because both do not address the main reason given to support the conclusion?

Thanks in advance!

[aileenann]

First thing I'll say without even looking at this question in particular is that for strengthen and weaken questions, they always ask which MOST strengthens or MOST weakens. Therefore, sometimes your task isn't just to figure out what weakens, but which one weakens more than the other answer choices do.

So part of the decision here is why is (E) better than (A) or (C) as a weakener, even if they all weaken?

Let's look at (A) first. I think it might partially weaken by providing a good counterargument as to why it might not be worth the time to invest in lab equipment to educate high school students. But you're right that it doesn't necessarily nullify the conclusion that this trend should be stopped. After all, even if it's difficult to keep up with the technology, maybe they should still try! So it's a weakener, but not a super strong one.

Now, let's compare (A) to (E). (E) is better because it gets at that main conclusion, about science education generally, by saying hey yeah, everything in this argument can still be true, but if h.s. students can still learn science effectively without lab experience who cares about all that. This is different from (A) which doesn't get at the ultimate issue -science education - as precisely.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions!
Similarly, (C) weakens even less. (C) talks about why computers are good to use, but this doesn't in any way take away from the need to use real lab equipment that the author sees. Therefore, this is not even as good a weakener as (A).

[shirando21]

I was able to eliminate B, C, D.

But isn't the argument talking about secondary school students simulating experiments with computers instead of laboratory experiments?

I did not pick E as E is talking about University students.

[jimmy902o]

Aileenann correct me if im wrong, but isnt the conclusion of this argument that "this trend (reduction of lab experiments) should be stopped." Then the very next sentence states that the problem this causes is students dont know how to work with lab equipment. Therefore this core of this argument deals not with science in general but lab equipment! So when E says that students can learn science withouts using lab equipment i crossed it out because it does not adress the fundamental issue in the argument, that labs are invaluable and should not be done away with. Rather E reads to me like sweeping the issue under the rug and trying to misdirect you with new info.

A on the other hand implies that computers are necessary to compete with other schools. This adresses both the issue of decreased lab use and directly weakens the conclusion that this trend should be stopped, and why i feel its the much better of the two choices

[shirando21]

I am on a second round practice, I can see this question more clearly now.

Evidence: many students' completing secondary school and going on to a university without knowing how to work with lab equipment.

Conclusion: The Lab experiment disappearing from most secondary curricula and replaced with computers should be stopped.

Our job is to weaken the argument.

E does the job by saying even though the evidence exists, it does not lead to the conclusion, it is ok for lab experiment to disappear, because it is not necessary for students to learn science effectively in university, thereby weakens the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion.

[bbirdwell]

Right on!

[wj097]

First thing I'll say without even looking at this question in particular is that for strengthen and weaken questions, they always ask which MOST strengthens or MOST weakens. Therefore, sometimes your task isn't just to figure out what weakens, but which one weakens more than the other answer choices do.

So part of the decision here is why is (E) better than (A) or (C) as a weakener, even if they all weaken?

Let's look at (A) first. I think it might partially weaken by providing a good counterargument as to why it might not be worth the time to invest in lab equipment to educate high school students. But you're right that it doesn't necessarily nullify the conclusion that this trend should be stopped. After all, even if it's difficult to keep up with the technology, maybe they should still try! So it's a weakener, but not a super strong one.

Now, let's compare (A) to (E). (E) is better because it gets at that main conclusion, about science education generally, by saying hey yeah, everything in this argument can still be true, but if h.s. students can still learn science effectively without lab experience who cares about all that. This is different from (A) which doesn't get at the ultimate issue -science education - as precisely.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions!
Similarly, (C) weakens even less. (C) talks about why computers are good to use, but this doesn't in any way take away from the need to use real lab equipment that the author sees. Therefore, this is not even as good a weakener as (A).

While I understand that E undermines the argument, I was bit uncomfortable w/ the part that says both A and C can weaken the ARGUMENT...I do see how A and C can attack the truth of the CONCLUSION, but the argument still seems intact...Also, I thought we almost always get one valid choice for weakener/strengthener questions which means that we don't have to compare among answer choices for their degree to which it strengthens or weakens

[callie44]

Doesn't A) actually strengthen? By saying it's difficult to keep up WITHOUT computers, doesn't that mean that computers are a good thing and therefore this trend SHOULDN'T be stopped?
I don't really see by A) weakens at all.
Thanks

[sumukh09]

The conclusion is that the trend of using computers SHOULD be stopped, and A essentially asserts the trend should NOT be stopped; so if A were true, then that would conflict with the recommendation in the stim that the trend should be stopped. A is a weak weakener - E gets at the heart of the premise - conclusion relationship.

[ttunden]

I chose the correct answer but I was picking between B and E. I didn't like how B was weak(some) and I didn't like how I had to make big leaps in logic to justify B being the answer so I deferred to E.


but can someone explain why B is wrong? Other than out of scope or irrelevant

Thanks

[ttunden]

can someone please expand further why it is not B? I chose the right answer but had B as a contender.

[lsatzen]

can someone please expand further why it is not B? I chose the right answer but had B as a contender.

Hi ttunden,

Here is the reason why I eliminated B during blind review:

The question stem asks us to weaken the argument found in the conclusion. To do that, we can make the conclusion less likely to be true or cast doubt on the connection between premise and conclusion (these aren't the only two ways to weaken an argument).

Core:
Trend of replacing lab experiments with computer simulated experiments should be stopped.

Why? It results in many students completing secondary schools and going to university without knowing how to work with lab equipment.

Assumption(s) / Gap(s):
All we know, according to the stimulus, is that lab experiments are the most effective method for teaching science and that it is disappearing from 2ndary school curriculum. Do we know why the disappearance of this teaching method is a bad thing? No we don't - it is implied.

We also don't know whether or not that lab experiments are essential or an integral part of the science learning experience; even worse, whether or not the teachings in high school are applicable / transferrable to the learning environment at the University level. Because the author never explicitly states this in his argument, it must be an underlying assumption that he is relying on in order to establish his conclusion. Answer choice (E) exposes that assumption. By rejecting the assumption that experience with lab equipment is an essential part of learning science, the link between premise and conclusion becomes unclear.

Why I think answer choice (B) is incorrect:
The main premise in the argument is: "it [the trend] results in many students' completing secondary school and going on to a university without knowing how to work with laboratory equipment."

(B) says "in some secondary schools, teachers conduct laboratory experiments while students observe."

I think (LSAT geeks, please correct me if I am wrong), if anything, this answer - as it is written - might strengthen the argument. It is saying that, although there is a trend of decrease in laboratory experiments in secondary schools, at least in some schools, teachers are making an effort to still implement it as a teaching tool by doing demonstrations for the students to learn from the experience. In their efforts to salvage the lab experiments, one might infer that they still believe in the educational value of lab experiments, thereby reinforcing the idea that the trend should be stopped. But that requires you to make additional inferences that just aren't there.


How to interpret as a weakener:

We could interpret (B) to be disputing the premise (which is uniquely allowed in a few strengthen and weaken questions, as valid answer choices).

(B) could be saying that, because schools are still using teacher-based demonstrations, students are still learning, indirectly, how to work with lab equipment. But, even if we interpret the answer choice this way, it is not entirely clear whether students merely watching an instructor do experiments teaches students anything. Most of the students might be strictly tactile / hands on learners.

Further, the word "some", in the weakest sense, could just mean one or two secondary schools are implementing this procedure. Would that really make that much of a difference, even if we grant that students are learning through this procedure? Is it enough to dispute the claim that students "completing secondary school and going on to a university without knowing how to work with laboratory equipment"?

[maryadkins]

Excellent explanation! Thank you, all around.

[jm.kahn]

I am posting because i noticed that no solid explanation exists in this thread for the post that asked why A and C are not weakners.

A and C don't weaken the argument in the slightest and there is always only one weakner. The conclusion is that the trend of using computer for simulating experiments should be stopped, not that all computer use should be stopped. So A/C don't affect the conclusion at all without extra assumptions and so not weaken.

[haeeunjee]

(A) is wrong because the stimulus is not saying that all computers should be banned from secondary school education. Just the trend where computers are replacing hands-on experiments.

So if (A) was true, this does nothing to weaken the argument since sure, computers are great and needed for keeping up with rapidly changing scientific knowledge. Computers can be in secondary school. Just not used as simulated experiments replacing lab experiments.