PT6.S3.Q25 - Proposals for extending the United States school year

BomhillzBomhillz Alum Member
edited May 2018 in Logical Reasoning 66 karma

In the order the stimulus presents info (this may be way off):
CTX - Proposals to bring US inline with rest of the world are met with objection that it would violate US tradition
C --- The objection that curtailing US school's summer vacation would violate tradition misses the mark
P --- US schools only closed because harvests needed child labor
Extra info (? unsure) --- A policy change justified by those appeals to tradition are determined by needs of the economy

Which principle if accepted justifies the conclusion?

(a) Social needs are irrelevant. Eliminate
(b) No appeal to tradition excuses a country from getting in line with legitimate expectations of the rest of the world. If it didn't say "legitimate expectations of the rest of the world" I'd think this is good but European and Japanese expectations are never mentioned
(c) masking real issues isn't in stimulus. Eliminate
(d) traditional principles should be discarded when they no longer serve the economy. If this said 'practices' instead of 'principles' I'd think it was perfect but we are not trying to change the principles of the past just the school years practices so we can eliminate
(e) actual tradition of a practice can only be identified by original reasons that prompted the practice

I got this wrong and struggled during BR only making progress through process of elimination, now I see that answer choice (E) connects the last sentence of the stimulus to what I identified as the conclusion. But now I'm thinking that the last sentence is the main conclusion and I've muddled up my own thinking.

Can someone help me identify each part of the argument better and flush this out? #help

Admin note: edited title

Comments

  • thisisspartathisissparta Alum Member
    edited May 2018 1363 karma

    Hey there!

    You've rightly labelled all components of the stimulus. However, (E) still connects the second last sentence to the conclusion.

    Here's the flow of the argument:

    Context = US should not get rid of a 3 month summer vacation because its tradition
    Conclusion = Nope; you're missing the point
    Major Premise = They had 3 month summer vacations sot that children could contribute in the harvest.

    (E) is essentially saying that if an appeal to tradition must be made, then the rationale for those traditions must be accurately identified. And that's exactly what the second last, not the last, sentence is doing. It's identifying the rationale and then concluding that the justification of the policy is missing the mark.

    The last sentence actually serves as an example of the the principle. Within the context of the argument, it's an addendum of sorts. It's providing the reader with an example of a policy that would be justified on the basis of an appeal to tradition. If you read it carefully, it's really a reworded version of answer choice (E).

    The strengthening characteristic of the principle underscored in answer choice (E) is primarily utilized to bridge the gap between the conclusion and second last sentence.

Sign In or Register to comment.