Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 1 · Question 19

Incorrect. This answer is too strong in stating that secondary schools should teach only those skills that are "most useful" in making decisions. The Teacher's bar is just that they are useful.

Incorrect. This answer runs counter to the Teacher's argument in that it calls for teaching the abstract aspects of science, whereas the Teacher calls for teaching more practical aspects "instead of" or in addition to the abstract aspects.

Incorrect. This comparison doesn't need for the argument to work. If adults with abstract scientific knowledge are better at analyzing science-based arguments than those without scientific knowledge, but those with practical scientific knowledge match those with abstract knowledge, then the argument can still work. The shorter version of this explanation? The argument cares about those with abstract vs. practical knowledge, so those with no knowledge are out of scope.

Incorrect. The Teacher at no point says that evaluating science-based arguments on practical issues isn't taught, nor does she rely on that. If there are a handful of schools that teach this, then their example might serve to strengthen the Teacher's argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Abstract science isn't useful to adults in their day-to-day lives, and skills taught in high school should be. So high school science should teach scientific evaluation of practical issues.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of this argument makes a recommendation about what should be taught in secondary schools—how to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues. In justifying teaching that over abstract science principles, the Teacher says that these schools should teach things that help adults make decisions in their daily lives. But there's no indication that adults do need to evaluate science-based arguments in their daily lives!

The argument assumes that this type of evaluation is useful to adults in their daily lives, so the correct answer will have to connect those two ideas.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the recommendation in the premise and the recommendation in the conclusion. The Teacher says that high schools should teach students things that will help them as adults—and therefore they should teach them how to evaluate science-based arguments. If adults don't need to evaluate science-based arguments, then the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Look for overlap between the premises and conclusion when you're dealing with a flawed argument. Here, both the premise and conclusion said, "Secondary schools should teach __________." That blank was different between the two parts of the argument. In order for the argument to work, then, those two ideas would need to be connected.