Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions - - Question 15
The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mathematical knowledge. More than a third of child...
JonJayFebruary 28, 2022
How do you rule out question choice (A)?
Hi there,
I narrowed down the choices to answer choice (A) and (E) and selected answer choice (A).
In the explanation of why answer choice (A) is incorrect, the following sentence is used:
"Since interest isn't established as being related to the development of skills, this answer choice is out of scope"
Using the logic of that explanation, one could apply that to answer choice (E) and argue that "Instruction" isn't established as being related to the development of skills, thereby being out of scope as well. After all, what if there is no "instruction" (let's assume we share a known, exact definition of the word 'instruction') and students happen to learn this subject simply by reading a book?
It seems that you could argue that both answers are correct (By proposing alternative causes that challenge the assumption upon which the argument is built) and you could argue that both answers are incorrect (By noting that neither variable is established as being related to the development of skills).
Can you please provide some differentiation between these two answers beyond what is given in the explanation for (A) being incorrect and (E) being correct?
Thank you in advance,
Jon
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
We are looking at a strengthen with necessary premise question type, so our correct answer choice will be one that, if negated, would completely contradict the argument.
If we negate A, we would end up with a statement like "Kids in the US are not less interested in math than those in Korea." If all children are equally interested in math, then there must be some other factor (like TV) that would explain why American kids perform so much worse. This negation actually slightly strengthens the argument.
If we negate E, we would get a statement that "Teaching in the US is substantially worse than teaching in Korea" which would provide an alternative explanation for the fact that American kids are worse at math. This does indeed undermine the argument.
You are right that interest and teaching are not explicitly mentioned, but I think we are safe to assume that the quality of teaching matters to student learning. However, the connection between interest and learning is not a given.
