PT76- S4- Q24 - Many introductory undergradute science

QQ ILLSATQQ ILLSAT Member
edited November 2015 in December 2015 LSAT 34 karma
Purpose of proving grounds: Designed to be so demanding that only those students most committed to being science majors will receive passing grades in these courses.

C: Designing introductory science courses to serve as proving grounds has not served its intended purpose

Premise: Studies show that some of the students in these very demanding intro courses who are least enthusiastic about science receive passing grades in these courses.

There is a gap here between "most committed to being majors" and "least enthusiastic about science."

What if those who are least enthusiastic are most committed to being science majors and passed the course? That would destroy the author's argument because the sole premise now becomes irrelevant.

However, I feel D is more like a sufficient assumption rather than necessary assumption. Let's negate D : some of the students who are least enthusiastic are among the students most committed to being science majors. However, with this negation, there are still two possibilities: (1) least enthusiastic +most committed + passed the course; (2) least enthusiastic + most committed+ not passed the course. So if all the students mentioned in D fall within the second the possibility, the conclusion still stands. So could anyone explain why D is a necessary one as it is broader than what we need.

Comments

  • jidazhengqianjidazhengqian Alum Member
    6 karma
    Yes I really agree with you! I think it is sufficient but not necessary ! Could anyone explain it?
  • lschoolgolschoolgo Member
    edited November 2015 274 karma
    I agree that it's a sufficient assumption not necessary. I wasted extra time on this q when saw no answer choice that was a NA but this question seems flawed.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @"QQ ILLSAT"
    @lschoolgo

    P1 Certain introductory undergraduate science courses are designed to be so demanding that only students most committed to being science majors will pass the class.
    P2 some students (who are least enthusiastic about science) slip through the cracks and pass the class.
    Conclusion: Designing the courses this way (because some students -other than- the most committed ones slip by and pass) fails to achieve its goal of allowing only the most committed ones.
    For this NA question we are going to try to help the argument by preventing a counter argument. Let’s say an opponent to this argument says, “Oh yes the design works…some of the same students who are least enthusiastic are also still most –committed- to being science majors.” (Maybe there is a good paying job awaiting them when they graduate)
    (D) comes along and says: “None of the students in the very demanding classes (who are least enthusiastic about science are among the students most committed to being science majors. “ This is unstated would be necessary should the argument hold.
    @jidazhengqian said:
    Could anyone explain it?
  • QQ ILLSATQQ ILLSAT Member
    34 karma
    @nye8870 Could you add more thoughts on why here D is NA rather than SA or is both NA and SA?
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    If it just so happened that two students passed who were least enthusiastic yet were also committed then the conclusion fails. Therefore, it is “necessary” that there is zero overlap between the two characteristics for the conclusion hold. (D) affirms just that.
  • jidazhengqianjidazhengqian Alum Member
    6 karma
    @nye8870 Thanks nye8870! But I still think D is unnecessary. If there is ONE (or more) student who are "least enthusiastic" and "not most committed", then the course fails to serve its purpose. Thus, it is not necessary to say that "All the least enthusiastic are not most committed". That's D. Could you correct me if I am wrong? @"J.Y. Ping" Could you take a look at our discussion?
  • c.janson35c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    2398 karma
    @jidazhengqian logically all we know is that one student who received a passing grade was the least enthusiastic. Let's call this student Karen. From this premise, the author is concluding the courses are not serving their purpose in ensuring that only the most committed pass. We're clearly bridging the enthusiastic and committed variables here, but let's look at D.

    If one who was the least enthusiastic was also among the most committed, then the conclusion is destroyed. Why? Because the author is saying the courses are failing at fufilling their purpose because Karen has passed and she isn't enthusiastic. But, if Karen is among the most committed, then it doesn't matter that she's least enthusiastic and we have no basis for saying that the courses are not fufilling their purpose.
  • pattyesqpattyesq Free Trial Member
    28 karma
    Y'all are forgetting that the proving grounds are designed such that "ONLY THOSE students most committed to being science majors will receive passing grades...". If even one student who is the least enthusiastic (and thus not among students who are the most committed) passes the course, the proving grounds has not served its purpose.

    Q.E.D.

    Some necessary assumption answer choices can be extreme. The stimulus just has to have the extreme language to back it up.
Sign In or Register to comment.