Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 4 · Question 18

Incorrect. While the whole-language method is used with children who learn to read alphabetic languages, there's no indication that the method itself teaches all necessary requirements of learning to read such a language. It might just not prevent a student from learning those things. And it certainly doesn't "inevitably" succeed—that's too strong based on the language in the stimulus.

Incorrect. First, there's no indication that the whole-language method teaches this necessary element of reading an alphabetic language. Second, the stimulus establishes requirements to learn to read an alphabetic language, not a sufficient condition as this answer suggests ("When . . . that person acquires").

Incorrect. This answer is an illegal negation of the stimulus. While the two pieces of knowledge listed here are the only listed necessary conditions for learning to read an alphabetic language, it isn't established that they're the only ones. Someone could fail to read an alphabetic language because they lack another necessary skill.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:Learn to read alphabetic language → Phonemic awareness (component sounds)
Learn to read alphabetic language → Learn the alphabet
not Learn the alphabet → not Learn to read alphabetic language*
Scenario Ð Many children learn the way words sound, but they also learn to read alphabetic languages

Answer Anticipation:
While there aren't a lot of if/then/only keywords here, there are a lot of words describing one thing as necessary for another, which is just as conditional. The first two statements set up a couple things that are necessary to learn to read an alphabetic language.

That third clause (after the semicolon) sounds fancy, but it ends up just being the contrapositive of the second statement—"otherwise" let's us know it's what happens when someone doesn't learn how sounds are represented by letters, and in that case people don't learn to read. It does so via the phonemic awareness part of the argument, but the result is the same, so that statement doesn't add anything new, logically speaking!

After that, we get a scenario—children learn to read alphabetic languages using the whole-language method, which teaches the way words sound. In general, when there's a mix of conditional statements and a specific scenario, the correct answer applies the conditionals to that scenario when possible. Here, since the students are learning to read an alphabetic language, they must develop phonemic awareness and learn that sounds are represented by letters. So the whole-language method is at the very least compatible with learning these two necessary things for reading alphabetic languages.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our anticipation and is supported by the stimulus. If some children learn to read alphabetic languages using the whole-language method, then that method can't prevent students from learning any of the requirements for such a language, including how sounds are represented by letters.

Key Takeaway:
Language establishing requirements is just as conditional as the traditional indicator words—if, unless, only, etc . . . If you see such language, start diagramming!

Incorrect. While a better answer than (A) in that it doesn't present success as inevitable, this answer has the same issue—there's no indication that the whole-language method teaches students the necessary elements of reading. It may succeed in spite of that by relying on students learning those skills elsewhere.