Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 2 · Question 7

Incorrect. Sklar doesn't argue that the benefits noted by Talbert don't exist, but rather that there's a separate reason that kids shouldn't be taught chess (it doesn't contribute value to society).

Incorrect. Neither speaker compares other activities to chess as far as how well they promote mental maturity. Sklar doesn't discuss mental maturity at all, in fact!

Incorrect. Sklar believes this to be true, but Talbert doesn't even discuss science, so this answer is out of scope of her argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
T: Chess teaches kids mental maturity, so it's beneficial to teach them.

S: Chess diverts mental energy from socially valuable activities to non-valuable ones, so it shouldn't be taught to children.

Answer Anticipation:
Talbert believes that teaching chess to children is beneficial because it teaches mental maturity. Sklar doesn't address the benefit teaching chess to children has on them or mental maturity—for all we know, he agrees with those statements. He brings up another consideration to reach his conclusion that chess shouldn't be taught to children—it takes time away from other activities that are socially valuable.

Since Talbert doesn't discuss social value (or science), these arguments are related in that they reach opposite conclusions using separate premises. Since neither discusses the premises of the other, the only element that can be a point at issue between them is their conclusion—Talbert believing that chess should be taught to children, and Sklar believing it shouldn't.

Answer Explanation:
Talbert believes teaching chess to children is beneficial, committing her to believing this. Sklar objects to teaching chess to children, thus disagreeing with this. This answer is the point at issue between them.

Key Takeaway:
A quick analysis of whether or not the two speakers use the same or different premises to reach the same or different conclusions can be a great start to Point at Issue questions. Especially when the two speakers use different premises and don't speak to each others' evidence, the correct answer is going to have to reflect the conclusion.

Incorrect. Sklar doesn't discuss mental maturity, so this answer is out of scope of his argument. This would also be an illegal negation from Talbert's argument, so she's not committed to believing this either (she could believe chess is one of many ways to teach mental maturity).