- Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:37 am
#112243
Hi SturdyStudy,
The first sentence in the stimulus is the conclusion of the argument and the second sentence is the premise. The first important point to note is that the conclusion advises against class sizes that are too large or too small and against teaching loads that are very light or very heavy. In other words, the conclusion is recommending a middle-ground, Goldilocks approach to these policies.
The premise, however, only provides support for half of the conclusion, specifically the half recommending against class sizes that are too large and teaching loads that are very heavy. The premise explains why these would be a bad idea. ("Crowded classes" and "overworked faculty" connect to large classes and very heavy teaching loads.) Nothing in the premise explains why small classes and light teaching loads would be a problem.
This is a Strengthen question. (The word "most" in the question stem indicates that it is Strengthen rather than a full Justify question.)
To strengthen this argument, you should be looking for an answer that provides a downside to having small classes and light teaching loads, because this is "new information" in the conclusion that hasn't been addressed yet.
Answer A does not provide an obvious downside to small classes or light teaching loads. Professors spending more time on research might actually be a good thing, so this answer may actually weaken the argument.
Answer B also does not provide an obvious downside to small classes or light teaching loads. A lot of classroom discussion might actually be a good thing, so this answer may also actually weaken the argument.
Answer C does provide an obvious downside to small classes or light teaching loads. Since either of these indicates incompetence in teaching instruction according to Answer C, this would provide a good reason not to have either of these in one's university, which directly strengthens the part of the argument's conclusion that recommends against these two things.
Note that this answer doesn't necessarily mean that small classes or light teaching loads cause teaching incompetence, but simply being associated with teaching incompetence would be a reason not to recommend these policies. In other words, the university wouldn't want people to notice the small classes or light teaching loads and draw the conclusion that it must be a sign of teaching incompetence.
Answer D also does not provide an obvious downside to small classes or light teaching loads. If this answer had only mentioned the worst universities, this would have strengthened the argument. However, by also connecting the small classes/light teaching loads to the best universities, the effect on the argument is unclear. If anything, the fact that small classes/light teaching loads are common among the best universities may weaken the argument (as most universities would likely want to emulate the features of the best universities) even if these features are also common among the worst universities.
Answer E also does not provide an obvious downside to small classes or light teaching loads. While it might be nice if the professors with lighter teaching loads offered more office hours, the fact that they do not offer extra office hours is not in itself a downside to small classes or light teaching loads. There may be other good reasons why small classes and light teaching loads are still a good idea. Note that if this answer had stated that professors with lighter teaching loads offered less office hours, that would be a downside/negative to light teaching loads and would strengthen the argument. However, Answer E allows that the office hours could be equal between these professors.
