Q9 - Robert: The school board

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Weaken (Samantha's argument)

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Proposal to get rid of 3 month summer vacation will not permit teachers to cover more material.
Evidence: This new schedule is the same amount of school days as the old one.

Any prephrase?
The author seems to assume "if you haven't added days, then you're not gonna be covering more material then before". We could weaken this argument with an idea that attacks that argument core: something that delivers Premise, but Not-Conclusion. We could prephrase, "Given that we're ending up with the same # of school days, how is this new plan supposed to help us cover more new material?"

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) This has nothing to do with how/whether teachers could cover more new material. Eliminate.

B) This has nothing to do with how/whether teachers could cover more new material. Eliminate.

C) This looks decent - "students showing a deeper understanding and retention of material" relates somewhat to whether teachers can cover more material. But does this really talk about covering MORE new material? It really just talks about the depth of understanding, not the quantity of material. And does the proposed schedule increase the number of school days per year? Oh, wait, no it doesn't. That was Samantha's whole point. Eliminate.

D) "This is DIRECTLY referring to what material teachers can cover, so I want to try to understand it. If students are off for only a few weeks, teachers spend a day to review old material. If students are off for a 3 month summer break, teachers spend closer to a MONTH reviewing old material. This works! This shows why the proposed schedule, even though it doesn't add any days, can allow teachers to cover more new material. With each of the six 2-week breaks, teachers would spend a day to review old material. So that's six days spent reviewing old material. With the summer break schedule, teachers spend a month reviewing old material. So that's THIRTY days spent reviewing old material. With the proposed schedule, teachers would have around an extra 24 days to cover NEW material.


E) This has nothing to do with how/whether teachers could cover more new material. Eliminate.

Takeaway/Pattern: Prephrase Weaken by saying, "Given that the PREMISE is true, how could we argue for the OPPOSITE CONCLUSION?"

#officialexplanation

[ying_yingjj]

I don't get this one.

What is Samantha talking about? Why the proposed schedule will not permit teachers to cover more new material?

[ying_yingjj]

Thank yo for explaining the question with so much detail, I appreciate it.

My education back is not in the US, so it was a little bit hard to understand or picture what they are really discussing about, but your detailed explanation totally made sense to me.

Thanks a lot!