PrepTest 137

Incorrect. Enjoyment is out of scope—the goal is to make better students, not meet a child's preferences.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Kids who learn from their parents when young do better in school, so these programs make kids better students.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument relates the results of experimental education programs, so we should start with looking for a sampling flaw and a correlation/causation flaw.

For the sampling flaw, there's no indication of who, exactly, adopted these experimental educational programs. It's possible that they're in some way unrepresentative of the general population, thus suggesting that the program won't see the same success when expanded.

For the correlation/causation flaw, the argument does conclude a causal relationship (to believe something is successful is to believe that it caused the desired effect) based on a correlation (the children in these programs did better in school). As such, we can look for the regular weakeners:
(1) ID an alternative cause (this is related to the sampling flaw, where the manner in which the group is unrepresentative might suggest an alternative cause)
(2) Counterexamples (though this argument is more statistical in talking about the performance being better than average, so "some" counterexamples won't be enough to affect the argument)
(3) Reversed causality (which doesn't make sense here since the programs predated the school performance)

So looking at the flaws and our anticipations, it really does seem as if we're going to find an answer that highlights a way that the families in the program are unrepresentative in a manner that suggests an alternative reason for the overperformance of these students.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the sample of families in the program is skewed—it includes a higher-than-average level of teachers serving as their children's "first teacher." These teachers are presumably better at teaching their children than the average parent would be, thus questioning whether the programs can be expanded successfully. In calling the recommendation in the conclusion into question, this answer weakens the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument relies on a sample—even if it's not called a sample, and it isn't specifically called a part of a study/poll/experiment—always check for a sampling flaw and a correlation/causation flaw. As we saw here, there's some overlap in those ideas—an unrepresentative sample can hint at an alternative cause!

Incorrect. The desires or approval of parents is out of scope, but this would, if anything, make it easier to expand the program, thus strengthening the recommendation.

Incorrect. First, there's no indication that the cost is relevant to the recommendation. Second, this answer is as compatible with the program being cheaper than expected as more expensive than expected. It's neutral, and thus it doesn't necessarily strengthen or weaken the argument.

Incorrect. The argument is about the overall effect of the problem, so a few examples of children being exceptional without the program doesn't mean that it isn't useful for many other students. Additionally, these children may have done even better with such a program.