The argument is that if parents are given the ability to pick schools, academically underachieving schools will be forced to improve their academic offerings.
Assumption: academics are the criteria parents would use to pick a school
A. is necessary because if parents used criteria other than academic achievement, schools would not be forced to improve academics... they would likely improve whatever the other criteria is that parents are using to select a school.
E. has a few problems, but to oversimplify... it's a lot of stuff that still doesn't lead to the conclusion. Schools would each improve all of their academic offerings and would not tend to specialize in one particular field to the exclusion of others.
For the proposed voucher system to cause underachieving schools to improve academics, we don't need all schools to improve all of their offerings, nor does the fact that they would mean it was a result of parents being able to pick a school... the event described in the conclusion (note: not the conclusion itself) happens as a subset of this answer choice, but that is only the first half: Schools would each improve all of their academic offerings.
When you add: and would not tend to specialize in one particular field to the exclusion of others, that definitely does not have to happen, nor does it have any bearing on our argument. So improvement must take place at ALL schools across ALL areas, and also be of equal magnitude of improvement within each school across subject areas? That is not supported at all.
Aside from all of that the conclusion is that schools (just underachieving ones) will be forced to improve... as a result of the proposed system, not just that they will for any reason improve.
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
2 comments
ok, I get it now. Thanks!
The argument is that if parents are given the ability to pick schools, academically underachieving schools will be forced to improve their academic offerings.
Assumption: academics are the criteria parents would use to pick a school
A. is necessary because if parents used criteria other than academic achievement, schools would not be forced to improve academics... they would likely improve whatever the other criteria is that parents are using to select a school.
E. has a few problems, but to oversimplify... it's a lot of stuff that still doesn't lead to the conclusion. Schools would each improve all of their academic offerings and would not tend to specialize in one particular field to the exclusion of others.
For the proposed voucher system to cause underachieving schools to improve academics, we don't need all schools to improve all of their offerings, nor does the fact that they would mean it was a result of parents being able to pick a school... the event described in the conclusion (note: not the conclusion itself) happens as a subset of this answer choice, but that is only the first half: Schools would each improve all of their academic offerings.
When you add: and would not tend to specialize in one particular field to the exclusion of others, that definitely does not have to happen, nor does it have any bearing on our argument. So improvement must take place at ALL schools across ALL areas, and also be of equal magnitude of improvement within each school across subject areas? That is not supported at all.
Aside from all of that the conclusion is that schools (just underachieving ones) will be forced to improve... as a result of the proposed system, not just that they will for any reason improve.