PT92.S1.Q17 - Plumbing grads

Comments

• 2 Likes

  majilat Member

  October 2021 99 karma

  For A to be better, we would have to know that the passage rate was worse PRIOR TO implementing the new curriculum, but we have no indication of that. All we know is that a third passed, and that the national average is above a third. But, where is there any mention of the quality of instruction?? Curriculum =/= instruction, a curriculum could be great but instruction is poor (perhaps the instructors were not properly trained in the new curriculum). Another possibility is that the curriculum is actually bad but the instructors are the best nationwide. You must have scratched your head when the conclusion mentioned "quality of instruction" for the first time and rightly so. The trap here is in making you harp on the relationship between the new curriculum and the passage rate (i.e. did A cause B or the reverse), rather than the real issue here, which is the relationship (or lack thereof) between passage rate and quality of instruction, i.e. the passage rate being below the national average is not grounds for concluding that the quality of instruction is poorer.
• 1 Like

  bella900 Member

  October 2021 47 karma

  I will also quickly add that another reason A is wrong (and this is also why it's so important to read answer choices carefully!) because is states "in the face of evidence" - but there is NO evidence suggesting that below-average triggered the change in curriculum. The previous commenter has rightly noted that the "quality of plumbing instruction" is new in the conclusion and not supported by any of the premises. Therefore, this is a gap in the argument,
• leoxnardx Member

  October 2021 82 karma

  @bella900 said:
  I will also quickly add that another reason A is wrong (and this is also why it's so important to read answer choices carefully!) because is states "in the face of evidence" - but there is NO evidence suggesting that below-average triggered the change in curriculum. The previous commenter has rightly noted that the "quality of plumbing instruction" is new in the conclusion and not supported by any of the premises. Therefore, this is a gap in the argument,

  I second this. There is nothing in the argument that states evidence that the low performance was caused by the curriculum
• mattscrappy Member

  November 2021 138 karma

  I also picked A originally, but got that feeling that I knew something was wrong with it. Once it showed me AC C as being correct, it clicked and I thought"oh right, what if the instruction has always been bad?"
  The only thing that the evidence actually proves is that the rate right now is below average, not that the quality of education has decreased at any point. Maybe the rate was always below average, so it's still possible that the rate of people passing has actually improved since the implementation of this new curriculum. The conclusion that the implementation has decreased quality is unsupported and thus C is correct.
• 5Fennel LSAT Member

  November 2021 192 karma

  plumbing institute:
  P: for several years use experimental curriculum
  P: 1/3 graduates pass certification - below national average
  C: curriculum lowered quality of instruction

  assumption needed for conclusion to make sense: passage rate was higher than 1/3 before experimental curriculum.
  the flaw is that no support is offered for this assumption. conclusion that instruction quality has lowered based only on premise that institute passage rate is below national average.

  A. phenomenon [low passage] as effect of observed change [experimental curriculum] in the face of evidence [not stated nor implied] indicating that it may be the cause of change.
  Answer is tempting because it could be an alternate explanation that the experimental curriculum was introduced to improve the low passage rate, but argument could still stand even if the explanation were true - curriculum could still have lowered the quality of instruction. Besides, evidence that it is the cause of the change is neither stated nor implied. The explanation does not attack the assumption on which the argument rests.

  B. lack of evidence that quality has increased [true per stimulus] as though it were conclusive evidence that it has decreased - lack of evidence of improvement not stated (maybe implied)
  This is a tempting answer but does not accurately describe the flaw of the argument. The key of the flawed argument lies in its conclusion of lowered quality of instruction implied by its passage rate relative to national average rate of certification passage, rather than relative to passage rate between years at the institute.

  C. concludes that [instruction] has diminished in quality from evidence that it is of below-average quality - premise stated and conclusion is accurately represented - correct answer. This is the most vulnerable point as the assumption that bridges premises and conclusion is completely unsupported.

  D. not vulnerable considering it is explicitly stated that the passage rate is below the national average. even if the average is stated, would not necessarily change the argument.

  E. sufficient/necessary conditions confused - not applicable to stimulus

  approach:
  1. Identify the flaw in how assumption bridges premise and conclusion and that the assumption is vulnerable (no support offered)
  2. multiple close answers - close answers not wholly incorrect, but rather state method of reasoning incorrectly or offer extraneous explanation.
  correct answer reflects strictly how the argument is flawed and introduces no other implications.