Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. This rule introduces two new variables, the level of challenge in a given book and the number of books read. We're looking for an answer choice that helps connect the existing premises to the existing conclusion. We can dismiss this answer choice for not connecting to the rest of the argument.

Incorrect. Who said kids don't get to choose the books they read in the programs where kids are paid for reading? Again, rather than adding a rule that allows the existing premises to support the existing conclusion, this introduces something new and unnecessary.

Incorrect. Off-topic. We're trying to support the conclusion that we should be suspicious of pay-for-reading programs in early childhood education. Even if parents play a greater role than teachers, we would still want to make sure the teachers are doing a good job.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
An editorial tells us to be suspicious of early education reading programs that pay children for reading. Everyone wants kids to read more, but bribing them could teach them to see reading just as a chore to do for money, not something they value for the joy it brings them.

Answer Anticipation:
As always with Strengthen (Principle) questions, we've got some premises and a conclusion, and we're looking for a rule that can be combined with the existing facts to make them more strongly support the conclusion. Here the conclusion is "Such programs should be viewed with suspicion." So, we need to find a rule that tells us why we care so much about whether or not kids are intrinsically motivated to read. Would it really be so bad if they were just reading to get their paycheck, as long as the kids read more? Apparently the editorial writer thinks so.

Answer Explanation:
Here we go. If the goal of all early education reading programs should be "get children to love reading," then any program that could reduce their love of reading is a bad idea. Even if the kids read more, but enjoy it less, the pay-for-reading programs would have failed to support the goal of instilling a love of reading. This does support (though not fully prove) the conclusion that such programs should be viewed with suspicion.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen questions are very common, comprising more than 14% of all Logical Reasoning questions on recent LSATs. Getting through them rapidly and accurately will definitely boost your score. Always begin by identifying the conclusion of the argument, which allows you to quickly eliminate answer choices that do not directly relate to the conclusion.

Incorrect. This would tend to weaken the argument. Bribing children to read might get them to read more, and practicing reading might improve their facility with reading, thereby enhancing their love of reading. Were this the case, pay-for-reading would be a great idea for kids young enough to need a lot of work on their basic reading abilities!