Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.
Conclusion: "if United States children are to do well in mathematics, they must watch less television."
Why? We are told that the more television children watch, the less competent they are in mathematical knowledge. The following figures are given: more than a third of children in the United States watch television for more than five hours a day, whereas in South Korea the figure is only 7%. And we are told that less than 15% of children in the United States understand advanced measurement and geometric concepts, whereas 40% of South Korean children are competent in these areas.
So here we have a cause and effect argument. We are saying since children in South Korea are better at high level math and they watch less television, and children in the U.S. are not as good as high level math and watch more television, the amount of television that a child watches detrimentally affects their ability to of high level math.
Well, how do we weaken a cause and effect stating that X causes Y? We can show that Y causes X, or that a third factor, Z, causes either both X and Y or just Y.
We must take these other options out of the running if we are to strengthen our conclusion that X causes Y, i.e. if United States children are to do well in mathematics, they must watch less television.
Answer choice (E) does just that.
Does (E) strengthen? Yes.
Answer choice (E) helps us take out the independent third factor possibility that it may not be television fault--perhaps, high level math is not well comprehended in the U.S. because the U.S. has comparatively worse instruction in these areas than South Korea does. Taking away this possibility helps solidify that the difference is not in instruction, but rather in the amount of television being watched by the children of the different countries.
Does the negation make the argument fall apart? Yes.
If the negation of answer choice (E) were true, then we have another factor to consider that is different between the two countries. It is not just that the amount of television watched by the children is different, but that the quality of instruction is far better in South Korea than in the U.S.. Thus, it does not necessarily stand that the amount of television watched is the culprit behind U.S. children's poor comprehension of high level math.
If you have any specific questions on any of the specific answer choices, please feel free to clarify.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
CeciOctober 12, 2018
why not b?
yuetnganMarch 23, 2019
Wouldn't answer choice e be seen as irrelevant to less TV->better math?
yuetnganMarch 23, 2019
I meant, wouldn't the new concept of method of instruction, be sort of irrelevant to the text, even by understanding the correct logic of better math -> less tv?
