PT55.S1.Q06 - teaching students calculus

Sarah889

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-06/

I had gone over this question during Saturday's BR call and I got some great feedback, but this isn't quite clicking with me yet. I just need help eliminating answer choice E.

So the argument is as follows:

CTX: Teaching students calc before they attend university may significantly benefit them.
P1: If students are taught calc before they are ready for the level of abstraction involved, they may abandon the study of math altogether.
C: If we are going to teach pre-university student calc, we must make sure they can handle the level of abstraction involved.

I chose A, but during my personal BR I changed it to E.

A says: "Only those who, without losing motivation, can meet the cognitive challenges that new intellectual work involves should be introduced to it."
At first, I second guessed this answer choice because I did not interpret the stimulus to say that the students need to "meet the cognitive challenges," only that they need to be able to handle calculus to a point where they don't lose motivation in mathematics. I thought it was possible for a student to take calculus, not do so well (and not meet the cognitive challenges), but still be able to "handle the level of abstraction" in the sense that they did not lose interest in math as a result of the level of abstraction. I interpreted "handle level of abstraction" to mean "not being psychologically deterred from math." I didn't take it to mean that they had to achieve a certain level of performance.

E says: "The level of abstraction involved in a topic should not be considered in determining whether that topic is appropriate for pre-university students."
I am really struggling with this answer choice. The premise says "before they are ready for the level of abstraction" and the conclusion says that we must "make sure they can handle the level of abstraction." In this entire argument, the actual level of abstraction is unchallenged. The only thing we are challenging is the student's capability of handling it. The conclusion is claiming that, if we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we need to evaluate THEM and make sure THEY can handle it. I chose E because I don't see why the level of abstraction couldn't be what is considered before teaching them. Maybe the level of abstraction should be reduced for some students or maybe it should be reduced in general for all pre-university students. It could just be that the level of abstraction is just generally too high. Why couldn't the conclusion instead be "If we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we must reduce the level of abstraction to meet their "handling capacity." E eliminates this alternate conclusion.

I was told that I am approaching this question like a sufficient assumption question and not a pseudo-sufficient assumption (which is why I lost faith in answer A-- I was focusing too closely on the logical structure of the argument to my detriment). That's most likely the case, but I still don't feel confident in eliminating option E. Any insight is greatly appreciated.

Cant Get Right

This one is tricky because it's hard to match up your terms. They express the same ideas with very different language and it creates a very challenging argument to follow. If their purpose was to construct a strong, concise argument, we would call this poorly written. The purpose, however, was to write a very confusing argument, lol!

So you need to begin by reexamining the terms you are aligning. Really break the stimulus down grammatically to parse out exactly what it's saying.

Start with: meet cognitive challenge ≠ they need to be able to handle calculus to a point where they don't lose motivation in mathematics.

I think you're right that the issue of motivation does not directly equate to "meeting cog challenge," but what if we break that down and just consider "need to be able to handle calculus." Can we form a link there? What if we switch out the wording to say: They need to be able to meet cognitive challenge to a point where they don't lose motivation in math. That seems to carry precisely the same meaning, so that's where our terms align.

Keep breaking down this stimulus in that way and see if you can get it by approaching it from that angle. This is a great question to demonstrate how grammar and syntax- not logic- are often the elements that make a curve breaker so challenging. I think that sticking with this one until you fully crack it open could be a really great exercise.

Sarah889

@"Cant Get Right" said:
Keep breaking down this stimulus in that way and see if you can get it by approaching it from that angle.

This is a really great idea! I definitely see the value in this exercise when trying to reconcile myself with answer A, but I fear that if I was presented with this question again, I would still chose E.

The argument assumes that there is one level of abstraction for calculus. In fact, we could even take the term "level" out and just call it "calc abstraction," since the argument does nothing to differentiate between different levels of abstraction. The argument ONLY differentiates between the levels of student's capabilities to handle the abstraction. So there's this one level of abstraction: calc abstraction. We need to evaluate which students can handle it and which ones can't. What I'm saying is--why is that the case? Why can't there be different levels? Level 1 for slower kids, level 2 for average kids and level 3 for smart kids (kind of like we do anyways in high school- AP calc, honors calc, normal calc, "extra help" calc, etc). E sort of addresses this by saying that we shouldn't consider the levels of abstraction when teaching students, which would eliminate this possibility for the conclusion to be drawn.

I need to see why E is wrong in order to love A. Because I see why A is feasible, but I am having trouble accepting it as the answer when, to me, E seems great. I know I am missing something...

TheLSAT

Hello @bswise2,
Answer choice "A" justifies the argument because it addresses the premise as well as the conclusion if you read closely.
-Only those who, without losing motivation (i.e. the ones who won't abandon the study of mathematics altogether), can meet the cognitive challenges that new intellectual work involves (i.e. the ones who can handle the level of abstraction involved in the study) should be introduced to it. So if you add answer choice "A" to the stimulus, you will justify the conclusion because that answer choice necessitates what the conclusion requires.

-As for answer choice "E" it does not work because it does not address the premise nor the conclusion. It also produces disfavor to the argument by claiming that the level of abstraction involved in a topic should not be considered in determining whether that topic is appropriate for pre-university students. Of course the level of abstraction matters, otherwise the argument falls apart. If the level of abstraction should not be considered, then why would we have to make sure students can handle "it" before we introduce it to them. The argument states in the premise and the conclusion that abstraction is a factor, and hence answer choice "E" is counter to our purpose of validating the argument.