76.lr2.21

lschoolgolschoolgo Member
in General 274 karma
Is there a clear reason about why B doesn't weaken for 76.lr2.21?

It can weaken by suggesting that those who completed the program were better to begin with but perhaps i am missing something. the credited choice only refers to "many" may not necessarily undermine the argument which uses most children as evidence. My only issue with C is with the phrasing of "many children".
It's because those "some/many children" may not be the part of the support in the argument which was only based on "most children" and these two are compatible. An observation about some/many people shouldn't weaken an argument that is based on "most" children.

Comments

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    (B) says: Those children who began the program (yet did NOT successfully complete the program) ... blah blah blah. The stimulus only informs us of matters concerning those who DID complete. Whatever happened to the dropouts? We can't use that info to influence the argument.
  • lschoolgolschoolgo Member
    edited December 2015 274 karma
    B also informs us about those who successfully completed the program: if those who completed had better pre-program achievement than those who didn't, then it supports the idea that those who completed were naturally high achievers and didn't become so as a result of the program. That seems to weaken the argument.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @lschoolgo Perhaps. But that is making an assumption as to the reason why they did not complete. Maybe one kid got sick. Maybe one kid's parents couldn't afford to continue the program. The stim never stated that the kids who dropped out did-so because they were not as intelligent. Since we do not know why they dropped out we cannot compare them in any way to the kids who did complete the program.
  • lschoolgolschoolgo Member
    274 karma
    The choice clearly mentions that they had "lower pre-program" achievement, which strongly suggests they were not as good as those who completed when beginning the program. This provides an alternate explanation of why those who completed ended up seeing increase in achievement because they were naturally better from the beginning.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @lschoolgo I must be missing something.I do not read anything about "pre-program" anything. Along the lines as I was stating earlier...the ones who did not complete may have very well experienced a boost in academic achievement..we are told nothing of their fate.
  • mimimimimimimimi Free Trial Member
    edited December 2015 368 karma
    My take on this question:
    B. While you could argue that the children who finished the program were smarter to begin with, you could also argue that the kids who did not finish the program were below average, which leaves open the possibility that the successful kids were just average. So this is getting us nowhere.

    C. Gives an alternative cause.

    Also, note that the evidence is that the children who completed the program showed a "significant increase" in achievement levels. If these children were above average to begin with, the increase was hard to explain. While B probably weakens conclusion that these kids had achievements in many other areas because of chess, it does not weaken the argument that the increase was due to chess.
  • LSATdogfmlLSATdogfml Free Trial Member
    62 karma
    @mimimimi is on to something here. This question gets you on a very minute detail but it is there.

    The stimulus says that kids who completed the program showed INCREASED performance in everything. Therefore chess playing CAUSES increase in academic performance. Basically; some major paraphrasing here.

    B) says that the kids who completed the program were smarter (aka had stronger performance) to begin with. This DOES NOT NEGATE the argument. Even if the kids who completed the program were better students to begin with, it doesn't undermine the fact that playing chess INCREASED their performance EVEN MORE. The premise stays, no assumptions being challenged, conclusion not negated => argument not undermined.

    C) however, does undermine the argument because it attacks the causal relationship that is inferred in the stimulus. Remember the techniques to refute a X causes Y, aka X -> Y, argument. Either refute it with Y -> X or Z -> Y. Choice C) uses Z -> Y.

    Stimulus says playing chess (X) causes higher grades (Y), X ->Y
    C) says the increased academic performance (Y) of the children who completed the program is caused by their motivation to join the chess club that requires high GPA (Z), hence Z -> Y; argument is undermined.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @lschoolgo I see the "pre-program" bit now. Sorry. Still I must say that the conclusion is supported by info re:the completers so the non-completers are irrelevant.
  • cverdugocverdugo Free Trial Member
    136 karma
    Pretty tough question, here's my take.

    We need too weaken the argument. Before we go into the answer choices and let them trip us up, let's figure out what exactly the core of this argument is. It says that reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in Chess playing contributes to achievement in other areas. This is what we need to attack and be skeptical about.

    B is wrong because it tells us about the people who did not successfully complete the chess program. This was a well-laid trap because it has ideas that seem to fit in with our argument. But taker a deeper look, what do we know about these people who did not complete the program from choice B? Simply that they had lower preprogram levels of achievement, it tells us nothing about their chess playing. Just because they didn't complete this experimental program doesn't mean they didn't play chess still and have these chess skills.

    C is correct because its going to attack their reasoning. Argument says is the spatial intuition but the answer choice says this motivation to join this chess club was the cause.
Sign In or Register to comment.