#3 - In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption-SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus we are presented with three facts and then a conclusion is drawn. Europe has calisthenics; North American children do not. North American children are in worse physical shape. The conclusion then states that the only way to make North American children more fit is through the calisthenics. This is the gap in the reasoning. The argument assumes that the calisthenics are the only cause of the physical differences. An objection might state: "North American children could be made just as fit by forced participation in after-school sports" or any other type of physical activity. This is a supporter model assumption question, so we are looking to fill this gap.

Answer Choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because it is not necessary for the conclusion of the argument to follow. Even if Not all children can be made physically fit, the argument is only talking about two groups of children in general, not every single European and North American child.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect for the same reasons as answer choice A. The test writers try to tempt you with two similar answers, this one a bit more specific, so that you think one of them must be correct. This answer choice, like the previous one, is irrelevant when negated because whether or not "all" children are "equally" physically fit does not affect the conclusion.

Answer Choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect because it introduces a new idea that is unrelated to the argument. Negated, the answer choice only makes a statement about superior health, but the conclusion only deals with being "physically fit." This answer choice goes beyond the argument.

Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. It fills the gap in the argument. If we negate this answer, then the causal link between calisthenics and physical fitness is also negated. If there is no causal link between these two factors, then the conclusion does not follow. There might be other ways for North American children to be physically fit.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because it introduces an entirely new idea that is unrelated to the stimulus: a nutritious diet. Negated, this answer choice has nothing to do with the argument.

[kristinaroz93]

"in eruope schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics.."

While I understand why every other answer is wrong, I can't seem to udnerstand what choice D is saying. What does it look like negated (via conditional diagramming). Essentially, though I understand that it should destroy the conclusion when negated, I don't seem to understand quite how. Maybe an explanation utilizing conditional reasoning can do the trick.

Best,

Kristina

[David Boyle]

"in eruope schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics.."

While I understand why every other answer is wrong, I can't seem to udnerstand what choice D is saying. What does it look like negated (via conditional diagramming). Essentially, though I understand that it should destroy the conclusion when negated, I don't seem to understand quite how. Maybe an explanation utilizing conditional reasoning can do the trick.

Best,

Kristina

Hello Kristina,

The stimulus says that North American kids can become fit only if doing daily calisthenics. So, f dc (fitness requires daily calisthenics). Answer D fits that because it calls calisthenics "indispensable", i.e., necessary, just like the stimulus does.
If you negate answer D, it would be something like "dispensable", i.e., not necessary. But that would sink the reasoning of the stimulus, which says that American kids absolutely must do daily calisthenics.

Hope this helps,
David

[Rocket]

What specifically tells us this is a necessary assumption question...thereby enabling the negation test? It seems that it could be read as asking for a sufficient assumption or as a justify question.

There is no necessary indicator i.e. "depends on" "requires", "unless" etc.

[Jon Denning]

Hey Rocket,

Thanks for the question, and welcome to the Forum!

In this case the word "assumed" is all we need to know this is an Assumption question (note: we just use "Assumption" for the necessary idea, and "Justify" for the sufficient idea, as that's a much more efficient way to categorize them than including the (redundant) action, too).

"Which of the following is assumed?" is always Assumption; "Which of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn?" is always Justify, since the task is to prove the conclusion true (find an answer that is sufficient to fully trust the author's argument).

If you have our Logical Reasoning Bible, or perhaps one of our course books, you'll find some drills on this exact idea: loads of question stem wordings that then ask you to identify the type. It's a critical skill so I encourage you to make it a focal point in the early stages (or all stages, for that matter) of your studies

Thanks again and I hope that helps!

Jon

[Stephanie Oswalt]

We recently received the following question from a student:

"The key explains answer A that it confuses necessity with sufficiency. The author assumes that calisthenics are necessary to insure physical fitness; whether they are sufficient to do so is a different question.

I remember the bible said that "all" introduces the sufficient part. According to this, the answer didn't confuse the necessity with sufficiency.

And also, the explanation on the forum didn't say anything about the confusion of the necessity and sufficiency.

Is the explanation on the papers is wrong?

Best wishes,
Wenting

An instructor will respond to the question below. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Wenting! The language of answer A can be a little confusing. There is indeed a sufficient condition indicator, "all", present, and it is tied to "children". So what is it actually saying?

You could break it down two ways, both of which make perfect sense, and then one way which does not. Here are the options:

1) If you are a child, then you can be made fit by calisthenics. Not that you must, just that you can. Child Could FBC. That's literally what's happening in that answer. Does that prove that calisthenics is the only way? Nope - it's still just one way. Set up this way, getting fit by doing calisthenics is posed as a mere possibility, not a requirement. Our author need not believe that every child can get fit this way, just that there is no other way to do it. Some kids might fail, but all those that succeed will have done calisthenics.

2) If you are a child that does calisthenics then you can be made fit. CDC Could Get Fit. Again, the necessary condition here is still just setting up a possiblity, not a requirement. It's necessary that it be possible, but still not necessary that it's necessary, if you get my meaning. Again, the author doesn't have to assume this - he could be okay with some children not succeeding. His argument is not that calisthenics guarantee fitness (fitness isn't necessary), but that fitness requires calisthenics (fitness is sufficient).

3) Here's the mistake that I think you might be making - if you are a child that can be made fit, then you do or did calisthenics. If that's what answer choice A was saying, then it would indeed be his assumption, but that's not what this answer means. "Child made physically fit" is not the sufficient condition.

An easy mistake to make is believing that the words closest to the conditional indicator are the ones that are tied to that indicator. Sometimes they scramble things up in confusing ways. Consider this: "The only way to get a 180 is by studying." The words closest to the necessary indicator "only" are "get a 180", but getting a 180 isn't the necessary condition. Studying is necessary here, and a 180 is sufficient! That is, getting a 180 is sufficient to prove that you studied. Look at the overall logical relationship, consider paraphrasing the argument as a simpler "if...then" statement, and see if that helps you to determine which terms are which in a conditional claim.

I hope that helped, and good luck in your continued studies! Please feel free to join us here in the forum again with more questions.

[AnnBar]

Hello there,

I was between answer choice A and D. I tried to use the Assumption Negation technique but that did not really clear anything up for me.
Logical negation of A:
Not everyone can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics.

Logical negation of D:
School calisthenics are NOT an indispensable factor in...

Conclusion:
North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis
can be made physically fit participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis

It seems to be both negations attack the conclusion. Could you please explain to me what I am doing wrong?

Thank you,
AB

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Ann,

Great job on negating the answer choices and diagramming the conditional relationship in the conclusion.

"can be made physically fit participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis" means that calisthenics are necessary for physical fitness, not that they are sufficient. So an answer choice that, when negated, says "Not all children [sidenote: keep the same subject, which is children, don't make it larger by including everyone] can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics." would not kill this conditional statement because it could be true that some people who do the NECESSARY thing still don't get to the other side. Maybe there are other necessary conditions, like eating right and getting good sleep.

Here's an example:
"To go to law school, you must graduate from college" and "Not everyone who graduates from college can go to law school" are not incompatible sentences.

However, answer choice (D) is clearly incompatible with the conclusion. To keep with our example above:
"To go to law school, you must graduate from college" and "Graduating from college is not indispensable for going to law school" would be incompatible sentences. They can't both be true at the same time.

Hope this helps!

[AnnBar]

I understand the example you gave about law school, but am still having a hard time understanding how it applies to this question.

I interpreted the phrase "Not all children can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics" as slash on the sufficient condition rather than the Necessary condition.

It seems I am and became confused on the diagramming of the two answer choices. Could you walk me through how they would be diagrammed. Particularly A and D.

Thank you