#9 - Psychologists report that children in nine-month schools

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[katnyc]

I got this answer right because I did not like the other answer choices. However im not sure if i would get this right again if another answer choice was written. Would someone mind going over this? thank you

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Kat,

The argument starts by stating that "Psychologists report that children in nine-month schools typically forget a significant amount of schooling during (the 3 month) summer breaks."

The underlying assumption here is that the 3 month summer break is too long between schooling, and this is causing the students to forget much of what they learned.

Based on this, some educators suggest having 3 separate (1 month) breaks spread throughout the year instead of the 3 month summer break. Again, the underlying assumption here is that 1 month breaks wouldn't be too long for the students to forget much of what they've learned. We don't actually know if this true. It is possible that 1 month breaks would still be "too long," and the students would still forget much of what they learned.

The argument concludes that the 12 month schedule (with the 3 separate 1 month breaks) is better for academic learning since it insures that the students will not forget what they've learned during the shorter breaks.

The flaw here is the unwarranted assumption that the 1 month breaks won't also have the same problem as the 3 month summer breaks i.e. that a 1 month break is sufficiently short enough for the students not to forget what they've learned.

There a number of ways that the test makers could describe this flaw.

Answer C is one way to describe it. Takes for granted that in comparing two situations (the 3 month break vs. the 1 month breaks) a certain undesirable result (the students forgetting much of what they learned) is correlated with only one of them (the 3 month break). This is another way of saying that the argument assumes that the 1 month breaks will not have the same undesirable result of students forgetting what they've learned even though that has not been established.

[cbernb15]

Hi Kat,

The argument starts by stating that "Psychologists report that children in nine-month schools typically forget a significant amount of schooling during (the 3 month) summer breaks."

The underlying assumption here is that the 3 month summer break is too long between schooling, and this is causing the students to forget much of what they learned.

Based on this, some educators suggest having 3 separate (1 month) breaks spread throughout the year instead of the 3 month summer break. Again, the underlying assumption here is that 1 month breaks wouldn't be too long for the students to forget much of what they've learned. We don't actually know if this true. It is possible that 1 month breaks would still be "too long," and the students would still forget much of what they learned.

The argument concludes that the 12 month schedule (with the 3 separate 1 month breaks) is better for academic learning since it insures that the students will not forget what they've learned during the shorter breaks.

The flaw here is the unwarranted assumption that the 1 month breaks won't also have the same problem as the 3 month summer breaks i.e. that a 1 month break is sufficiently short enough for the students not to forget what they've learned.

There a number of ways that the test makers could describe this flaw.

Answer C is one way to describe it. Takes for granted that in comparing two situations (the 3 month break vs. the 1 month breaks) a certain undesirable result (the students forgetting much of what they learned) is correlated with only one of them (the 3 month break). This is another way of saying that the argument assumes that the 1 month breaks will not have the same undesirable result of students forgetting what they've learned even though that has not been established.

Hi Jeff! I just wanted to thank you with the effort you put into your replies. I have looked at other questions on this preptest and you have helped out so so much with explaining the correct answer. I hope you know that you have helped SO many people! Thank you!

[izzy101247]

Hi Kat,

The argument starts by stating that "Psychologists report that children in nine-month schools typically forget a significant amount of schooling during (the 3 month) summer breaks."

The underlying assumption here is that the 3 month summer break is too long between schooling, and this is causing the students to forget much of what they learned.

Based on this, some educators suggest having 3 separate (1 month) breaks spread throughout the year instead of the 3 month summer break. Again, the underlying assumption here is that 1 month breaks wouldn't be too long for the students to forget much of what they've learned. We don't actually know if this true. It is possible that 1 month breaks would still be "too long," and the students would still forget much of what they learned.

The argument concludes that the 12 month schedule (with the 3 separate 1 month breaks) is better for academic learning since it insures that the students will not forget what they've learned during the shorter breaks.

The flaw here is the unwarranted assumption that the 1 month breaks won't also have the same problem as the 3 month summer breaks i.e. that a 1 month break is sufficiently short enough for the students not to forget what they've learned.

There a number of ways that the test makers could describe this flaw.

Answer C is one way to describe it. Takes for granted that in comparing two situations (the 3 month break vs. the 1 month breaks) a certain undesirable result (the students forgetting much of what they learned) is correlated with only one of them (the 3 month break). This is another way of saying that the argument assumes that the 1 month breaks will not have the same undesirable result of students forgetting what they've learned even though that has not been established.

I'm not sure how the above explanation is the correct reasoning for this question. The stimulus covers the 12 month schedule with the premise "..., since this schedule will insure that students will not forget their schooling during their breaks.” Since this premise should be considered as truth, then you could not justify saying the author is in incorrect in assuming that only one situation will bring an undesirable effect. This is not an assumption, since it's directly stated in the stimulus as evidence/truth for the conclusion. If this was a situational flaw question, I'm not sure if an AC describing the difference in months as an assumption would be correct.

From my understanding, we are trying to find the flaw in why the 12 month schedule is preferable (the author's conclusion). The author is assuming that either the memory benefit is sufficient for preference or that there are no negative side effects to changing the schedule. The stimulus never provided guidelines on what we should prefer. What if there's another effect that negatively affects children's academic learning? Maybe kids aren't forgetting things as easily with the proposed schedule, BUT they could not learn as effectively/efficiently. We don't know, so we can't really conclude that the 12 month schedule will ALWAYS be preferable, even if kids forget less. The correct answer (C) still describes this flaw.

Please let me know if the above reasoning is correct.

[Robert Carroll]

izzy,

The issue with that reasoning is that answer choice (C) speaks of a "certain undesirable result." It's not undesirable results in general. So what, specifically, is that undesirable result? Jeff's post can easily answer that - the undesirable result is the forgetting of schooling during breaks.

In order to understand why answer choice (C) is correct AND the undesirable result is forgetting schooling, you have to realize that the author thinks that premise actually follows from the study. The author thinks that the study simultaneously proves that three-month breaks cause forgetfulness (true, according to the study) AND that the three one-month schedule does not result in that (not even mentioned by the study). When the author says "based on the psychologists' research", the author is using that research alone to prove the conclusion. From the author's perspective, the last premise ("since this schedule...") is an explication of an implication of that research. Since it's not implied by the research at all, that's where the flaw is.

Robert Carroll