Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

What is this stimulus even trying to say?

Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
in Logical Reasoning 2249 karma

Proposals for extending the United States school year to bring it more in line with its European and Japanese counterparts are often met with the objection that curtailing the schools' three month summer vacation would violate an established United States tradition dating from the nineteenth century. However, this objection misses its mark. True, in the nineteenth century the majority of schools closed for three months every summer, but only because they were in rural areas where successful harvests depended on children's labor. If any policy could be justified by those appeals to tradition, it would be the policy of determining the length of the school year according to the needs of the economy.

That bold and italicized sentence is what I think is the main conclusion. And the rest that follows it are the premises, but I don't understand why the author of this stimulus think the objections are "missing their mark." If someone could respond, that would be great.

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • davejonesydavejonesy Member
    50 karma

    The author believes that objections are grounded in an appeal to tradition, but is instead suggesting (as the last sentence states), individuals who offer that objection are misinterpreting what the actual motivation behind the tradition is (or at least what a tradition-based policy prescription ought to be).

    Both my thoughts and the stimulus are v awkwardly worded

  • tahurrrrrtahurrrrr Member
    1106 karma

    You're correct about the main conclusion!

    I think the author is trying to say that the objection (to changing the school year based on a 19th century US tradition) misses its mark because the reason for this objection no longer makes sense due to the way the US economy has changed. The tradition is dated, so it shouldn't be the basis for the objection.

    The only way tradition is a good reason for objection would be if they established the principle that the length of the school year should be based on the needs of the economy.

    It reads somewhat like "I understand your argument, but your premise doesn't support your conclusion. Here's a situation where your premise makes more sense"

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited May 2021 2249 karma

    So the objection is from this idea that because the school year in the united states has always been 9 months long since the 19th century, we shouldn't switch to a school year that looks more like the one in other countries? but what about the whole farming thing? is that how the objector views tradition or is that something the author brought in?

  • Butterflies and Lady BirdsButterflies and Lady Birds Alum Member
    edited May 2021 143 karma

    I agree, the bold sentence is a main conclusion, it is also the beginning of the argument.

    The author states that the proposal to change the vacation is being opposed - the author reveals to us what is the reason of the opposition. It is being opposed because changing this 3 months vacation would violate 19th century tradition of 3 months vacation.

    BUT then the author states that this opposition is missing it's point. (sentence in bold). And the author qualifies why it is missing it's point. By stating that, yes it might be true that in 19th century that was a tradition to have a 3 months vacation -BUT it was mainly done because back in 19th century the major schools were in rural areas where [successful harvests depended on children's labor.] - notice the strength of this language - successful harvesting depended on children's labor- that's strong no! Meaning this was a convenient time for schools to end, having children free to help out.

    But now the times are different we need to change the length of school year to bring it in line with our counterparts.

    I interpret this point as: Harvest depend on children's labor = good economy; in todays world economy doesn't need these kids harvesting so we don't need to stick to this tradition. We need these children to catch up with our counterparts. And if the opposition was based on the tradition, which was based on the economy then their opposition is missing the point; since today's economy does not require children to harvest, todays economy requires children to catching up with our counterparts.

    Hope this helps.
    M

Sign In or Register to comment.