PrepTest 135

[lcid:3639] Prep Test 135 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Educator: Reducing class sizes Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions

Stimulus Summary

Goal: Improve student achievement
Method: Reducing class sizes, which requires hiring more teachers
Problem: There’s already a shortage of qualified teachers in our area, and underqualified teachers hurt student achievement
Conclusion: Reducing class sizes won’t achieve our goal

Answer Anticipation

The argument sets out a goal and a method of reaching that goal, but then highlights a problem with achieving the goal - that there aren’t currently enough qualified teachers to carry out the plan. From this, the Educator concludes that the plan is doomed to fail.
However, there’s no discussion that the problem doesn’t have a solution. Maybe more qualified teachers could be trained or attracted to this school district. It’s even possible that teachers will be enticed to the school because of the smaller class sizes. Since the argument concludes that the qualified teacher shortage can’t be solved, it relies on there not being a solution, so any answer that rules out a potential solution to this shortage is a necessary premise that would strengthen the argument.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Class sizes in the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Since the conclusion is about whether reducing class sizes will improve student achievement, other reasons to reduce class sizes are out of scope. This answer would be correct in a stimulus where reduced class sizes were shown to not improve student achievement and the conclusion was that class sizes shouldn’t be reduced - in that case, other reasons to reduce classes would be in scope.
  2. B
    At least some qualified Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    This answer choice hurts the argument by showing that some classes might have students with higher education achievement, thus possibly raising the overall level.
  3. C
    Students place a greater Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    There’s no connection established between students achieving more when what they value is prioritized, so this answer is out of scope in bringing up the latter.
  4. D
    Hiring more teachers would Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The stimulus doesn’t require that no student would see improvements (“would not improve...any students…”), just that the overall level of achievement wouldn’t be improved. If some students did better but more did much worse, then the argument would still work.
  5. E
    Qualified teachers could not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer rules out a solution to the teacher shortage - finding a way to attract qualified teachers to the region. If these teachers could be persuaded to move to the region, then the problem that’s preventing the smaller class sizes could be solved, killing the argument.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Explain E please! 1 reply

    Started by hkolon

  • Choice D 1 reply

    Started by Meredith

  • Choice E 2 replies

    Started by EmilyMarieMenendez

View all discussions Start a discussion