Logical reasoning PrepTest 111 · Section 1 · Question 4

Incorrect. This answer advocates for continuing education, but it doesn't justify teaching the kids when they're young since this answer doesn't highlight a benefit of doing so.

Incorrect. It's great that kids can adapt to new technology as it advances, but this answer still doesn't provide a point to starting that process when they're young, well before they'll need the skills in "tomorrow's world."

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
PP: Computers will be important in the future, so we should start teaching them to kids when they're young.

PQ: Technology changes so quickly that anything they use would be obsolete by the time they get old, so it's pointless to start teaching them when they're young.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever a conclusion on the LSAT is absolute—e.g., that something is pointless—the argument is always flawed in that it ignores some counterexample, no matter how small. In this case, that means that, to counter PQ's argument, PP should establish some point to teaching kids to use computers when they're young, even though the technology and computer languages will be obsolete by the time they're older.

While that would be enough for us to head into the answers, we can get a bit more specific! And since the question stem asks us to find an answer that serves as a "logical counter" to Parent Q's the answer we pick should address their argument. What might be the point to learning computer skills on a machine that will be obsolete or a language that might not be in use anymore? It's possible that the skills learned on one machine or in one language translate to another. As such it's likely the answer choice will bring this up—that teaching kids these skills does have a point because they'll be able to translate them to new technology or it'll make it easier for them to relearn it on the new technology.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a point to teaching kids this material when they're young—they'll get more familiar with computer technology and be able to interact with it better. Thus even if it becomes obsolete and is replaced the increased ability to interact with technology will apply to the new machines and thus benefit the kids.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument reaches an absolute conclusion a single counterexample can serve to rebut it. Here saying something is "pointless" required only a response showing some point to it—no matter how small.

Incorrect. Assuming that this analogy is strong enough to be relevant (which is a big assumption), it still falls short of providing a point in the training when they're young. Even if someone doesn't have to relearn new technology as it advances, what's the point in teaching it well before the need arises?

Incorrect. While this answer might align with Parent P's argument, it doesn't directly address the argument Parent Q makes about obsolescence.