Self-study
Professor: Support Many introductory undergraduate science courses are intended to be "proving grounds," that is, they are designed to be so demanding that only those students most committed to being science majors will receive passing grades in these courses. ████████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████████████ █████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████████████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████
Summary
The author concludes that some people who get passing grades in intro science courses are NOT the students who are most committed to being science majors. (This is a translation of the claim that intro science courses have not served their intended purpose to be “proving grounds.”)
Why does the author believe this?
Because some students in intro science courses get passing grades even though they are the least enthusiastic about science.
Notable Assumptions
Premise:
passing grade ←some→ least enthusiastic
Conclusion:
passing grade ←some→ not most committed to science major
The author assumes that if a student is least enthusiastic about science, then they are not among the most committed to being a science major.
24.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████████ █████████
a
If some of ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ████████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ █████████████
Not necessary, because to be a proving ground, the intention is that the classes will prevent people who are NOT the most committed from receiving passing grades. But that doesn’t mean the classes are designed to guarantee that those who ARE the most committed will receive passing grades.
b
Science departments need █ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████████
Not necessary, because whether science departments need to have “proving grounds” classes is not relevant to whether certain classes are in fact acting as “proving grounds.” We care about whether the classes are successful “proving grounds,” not about whether these classes are necessary for science departments.
c
Some of the ████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ████████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ████████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████
Not necessary, because to be a proving ground, the intention is that the classes will prevent people who are NOT the most committed from receiving passing grades. But whether anyone is IS the most committed gets passing grade doesn’t affect whether the class is a proving ground.
d
None of the ████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ████████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████████████ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if SOME of the students in the intro courses who are least enthusiastic about science ARE among the most committed to being science majors — then the fact some of the least enthusiastic students get passing grades wouldn’t establish that the “proving grounds” purpose isn’t successful. The least enthusiastic students who get passing grades MIGHT be among the most committed to being science majors; if that’s the case, we have no reason to think the intro classes aren’t weeding out students who are not the most committed to being science majors.
e
Introductory science courses ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████
Not necessary, because whether intro courses “should” be proving grounds is irrelevant. What matters is whether they are successfully acting as proving grounds, not whether they should have that purpose.