Teacher: Participating in organized competitive athletics may increase a child's strength and coordination. As criti...
on March 20, 2020
Clarification
My take after reading the stimulus initially was that the teacher makes a claim then illustrates opponents argument but uses research to show the adults feeling inferiority are better off and therefore should keep the kids participating in competitive athletics.
The first sentence is what we are asked about and I concluded that this is the claim the teacher argues for to continue.
First time around, I felt like I understood question and went on to narrow down the answer choices to A and C. I ended up circling C which really annoyed me.
Answer Choice A: "It is mentioned as one possible reason for adopting a policy for which the teacher suggests additional reason."
The one possible reason for adopting the policy is because may increase a child's strength and coordination and offers another reason which is that adults with feelings of inferiority become more successful because they participated in competitive athletics.
Is this the correct breakdown?
thank you
1 Reply
Annieon March 21, 2020
Hi @gharibiannick,
Here's a breakdown of the argument:
Premise: Organized athletics may increase a kid's strength/coordination. Premise: Organized athletics can instill feelings of inferiority that never really disappear. Premise: Adults who feel inferior have been shown to be more successful. Conclusion: So, we should keep funding for kid's organized athletics.
Great job narrowing the choices down to A + C.
(C) is incorrect because the statement is not a hypothesis, but is rather another premise being used to support the argument. A hypothesis is something that must be tested. The statement that organized athletics increase strength/coordination is not being challenged or tested, but is simply being put forward as a fact. None of the following statements are used to support it either, rather it stands on its own and is used to support the final conclusion.
(A) is correct because, as you can see in the argument breakdown above, it is simply one premise being used to support the final conclusion. This question is a bit tricky because it seems like a random premise as the other two are centered around inferiority. However, just because the premise is about something a bit different, doesn't mean it is not still a premise supporting the ultimate conclusion- aka a reason for adopting the policy.
