PrepTest 103

Incorrect. The argument stated that one teaching method wasn't the best way because it induced boredom. This answer establishes that boredom should be avoided—and thus it isn't a part of the best way to teach history. If one shouldn't avoid boring students, then there's no reason to avoid stats/dates, and so this answer is a necessary premise and can be eliminated.

Incorrect. The double negative here is mean, but rephrased, this answer says—You can successfully teach history while spending very little class time on dates/stats. Which must be true for the argument to work—the conclusion is that the best way to teach history focuses very little on dates/stats. If you can't successfully teach history while avoiding those details, then the recommended method in the conclusion can't be the best way to teach history.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Most students are bored by the dates/stats of history courses, so the best way to teach history is with stories and almost no dates/stats.

Answer Anticipation:
A Bizarro Strengthen with Necessary Premise question—a rare treat! Did we say treat? We meant . . . whatever the opposite of treat is.

Looking at the conclusion here, it's pretty strong on two fronts. First, it talks about the "best way" to teach history. Second, it talks about "most[ly]" focusing on stories with "very little" on dates/stats. Since the conclusion is so strong, we'd need equally strong premises.

And we absolutely don't get them in this argument. Instead, we learn that most students are bored by a history course that focuses on stats and dates. But first off, boredom doesn't guarantee something is ineffective—maybe the bored students still learn history through a focus on dates and stats. Second, even if boredom precludes learning, there's no indication then that going in the opposite direction will be the "best" way to teach history. It's possible that dates/stats are important as a focus, but they just need to be toned down a bit and replaced with some stories in order to get students interested.

This argument jumps from a discussion of boredom based on one factor to a conclusion about the "best" way to teach something by essentially eliminating that factor. Any answer that addresses this jump is in play, but remember that we're looking for an answer that isn't a necessary premise. As such, we need to keep our eyes peeled for answers that are either out of scope, or are in scope but aren't necessary (e.g., they're too strong or broad—possibly by being about all courses and not just history ones).

Answer Explanation:
This answer is absolutely in scope, but it goes a step too far in stating that the stories of history can be told "without" dates/stats. The conclusion is that there should be "very little" on dates and statistics. That leaves room for there to be some of that information—potentially to make sense of the lives of historical figures. Since this answer isn't necessary for the argument to work because it talks past the conclusion, it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When we talk about the logical force of the conclusion, we frequently talk about it as a singular consideration. However, in reality, the conclusion can have varying levels of strength surrounding different concepts. Here, the conclusion was very strong in talking about the "best" way to teach history, and still strong but not as strong in talking about including "very little" dates/stats. The correct answer played off of the weaker concept in there by taking it a step too far. Be sure that you're thinking about the strength of concepts, not sentences, as the same sentence can have varying strengths.

Incorrect. This answer is phrased similarly to (B) without the double negative, so we can rephrase it the same way to make it easier to deal with—You can successfully teach history while spending most time on telling the stories of historical figures. Since the conclusion says that such a focus is the best way to teach history, this answer is just as necessary a premise as (B).

Incorrect. The argument throws out teaching history through dates/stats because it bores students, instead recommending a shift to telling stories of historical figures. In order for that recommended shift to make sense, it must be the case that it won't bore students as much as the dates/stats—otherwise, there's no reason to believe the shift would be any better, let alone the "best way" to teach history! This answer is necessary for the argument to work, so it can be eliminated.