LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 01

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 01

October 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:07

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT111 S3 Q01
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
99%
166
B
0%
151
C
0%
160
D
0%
145
E
0%
159
120
125
134
 +Easiest 147.206 +SubsectionMedium

More and more computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are being produced, and it is thus increasingly unnecessary for practicing engineers to have a thorough understanding of fundamental mathematical principles. Consequently, in training engineers who will work in industry, less emphasis should be placed on mathematical principles, so that space in the engineering curriculum will be available for other important subjects.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that engineers who will work in industry should receive less training in fundamental mathematics. Why? Since new computer programs can solve many mathematical problems, it is less important for engineers to understand mathematics deeply. Time previously spent learning mathematics can be reapportioned to cover other topics.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because the programs provide answers to mathematical problems, little mathematical knowledge is required to operate them. He also assumes that the computer programs in question will be used in industries where engineers work, and that other topics could use more coverage in the engineering curriculum.

A
The effective use of computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering requires an understanding of mathematical principles.
This challenges the assumption that good computer programs can replace sound mathematical reasoning. It implies that engineers with little mathematical knowledge would not be able to use these programs effectively.
B
Many of the computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are already in routine use.
This is fully compatible with the conclusion. Whether the emergence of these programs occurs in the past or future, the author advocates a change based on the expectation those programs will be in use while current students are practicing engineers.
C
Development of composites and other such new materials has meant that the curriculum for engineers who will work in industry must allow time for teaching the properties of these materials.
This strengthens the argument because it suggests time spent learning mathematical skills could be more productive if spent learning about composites.
D
Most of the computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering can be run on the types of computers available to most engineering firms.
This strengthens the argument because it suggests that most engineers who work in industry will have the capability to run these programs. It eliminates the possibility that the programs will be inaccessible to most practicing engineers.
E
The engineering curriculum already requires that engineering students be familiar with and able to use a variety of computer programs.
Proficiency in those computer programs may not make engineers proficient in the mathematical programs described. It’s not stated whether the programs engineers are already familiar with require a strong mathematical foundation.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply