LSAT 133 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 05

June 2011

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

Target time: 1:13

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
PT133 S3 Q05	+LR	Inference +Inf Causal Reasoning +CausR Net Effect +NetEff Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 1% 157 B 1% 155 C 3% 154 D 95% 163 E 1% 154	128 136 145	+Easier	147.69 +SubsectionMedium

Parent: Pushing very young children into rigorous study in an effort to make our nation more competitive does more harm than good. Curricula for these young students must address their special developmental needs, and while rigorous work in secondary school makes sense, the same approach in the early years of primary school produces only short-term gains and may cause young children to burn out on schoolwork. Using very young students as pawns in the race to make the nation economically competitive is unfair and may ultimately work against us.

Summary

Rigorous schoolwork in secondary school makes sense.

Making young children do rigorous schoolwork in order to make the country more competitive does more harm than good; it’s unfair and may backfire.

Rigorous schoolwork in primary school only produces short-term gains and can lead to burnout.

Schoolwork for young children must address their developmental needs.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

Rigorous schoolwork in primary school does not address young children’s developmental needs.

For our nation to be competitive, our secondary school curriculum must include more rigorous study than it now does.

Unsupported. The parent never gives a condition that’s necessary for making the nation competitive. Also, while she says that rigorous schoolwork in secondary school makes sense, she doesn’t imply that it should be more rigorous than it is now.

The developmental needs of secondary school students are not now being addressed in our high schools.

Unsupported. The parent says that rigorous schoolwork in secondary school makes sense, but she never mentions whether secondary school students’ developmental needs are being addressed.

Our country can be competitive only if the developmental needs of all our students can be met.

Unsupported. The parent never gives a necessary condition for making the nation competitive. She says that schoolwork must address the developmental needs of young children, but doesn’t imply that this will then make the country competitive.

A curriculum of rigorous study does not adequately address the developmental needs of primary school students.

Very strongly supported. Schoolwork for young children must address their developmental needs, but rigorous schoolwork does more harm than good, leads to burnout, and only produces short-term gains. So we can infer that it doesn’t address young children’s developmental needs.

Unless our nation encourages more rigorous study in the early years of primary school, we cannot be economically competitive.

Unsupported. The parent never gives a necessary condition for making the nation competitive. She says it’s unfair to make young children do rigorous schoolwork in order to make the nation competitive; she never says that this is necessary for making it competitive.

LSAT 133 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 05

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel