LSAT 135 – Section 4 – Question 13

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:29

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
PT135 S4 Q13
+LR
Necessary assumption +NA
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
11%
160
B
4%
160
C
2%
160
D
32%
161
E
51%
168
155
164
173
+Hardest 147.853 +SubsectionMedium

Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers. However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. Although students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller, education suffers when teachers are underqualified. Therefore, reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement.

Summary
The author concludes that reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement.
Why?
Because reducing class sizes requires hiring more teachers.
There’s already a shortage of qualified teachers in THIS REGION.
Education suffers when teachers are underqualified.

Notable Assumptions
We can’t attract enough qualified teachers from outside this region to work at our schools.
The benefit students would get from smaller classes does not outweigh the harm to education resulting from teachers who are underqualified.

A
Class sizes in the school district should be reduced only if doing so would improve overall student achievement.
Not necessary, because the argument never argues that something should or should not be done. So it doesn’t need to assume anything about the circumstances necessary for when class sizes “should” be reduced.
B
At least some qualified teachers in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in their classes if class sizes were reduced.
Not necessary, because if it were not true — if NO qualified teachers would be able to improve overall achievement in their classes if class sizes were reduced — this doesn’t undermine the argument. In fact, it helps support the claim that reducing class sizes would not improve overall student achievement.
C
Students place a greater value on having qualified teachers than on having smaller classes.
What students value has no role in the reasoning of this argument. The argument concerns the effects of making class sizes smaller. We have no reason to think what students value more has any impact on the effects of reducing class sizes.
D
Hiring more teachers would not improve the achievement of any students in the school district if most or all of the teachers hired were underqualified.
Not necessary, because it’s too extreme. The author doesn’t need to assume that underqualified teachers would not improve the achievement of “any students in the school.” Even if they improve the achievement of some students, as long as they don’t improve the overall achievement of the school, the author’s reasoning still stands.
E
Qualified teachers could not be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs.
Necessary, because if it were not true — if qualified teachers COULD be persuaded to relocate in significant number to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs — then the fact that there’s a shortage of qualified teachers in THIS REGION doesn’t necessarily establish that we’ll need to hire underqualified teachers to reduce class sizes. We might be able to hire qualified teachers who move in from other regions.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply