#19 - Science teacher: An abstract knowledge of science is

[Administrator]

Complete question explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)

The teacher's conclusion is that secondary school science courses should teach students to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues, becuase secondary schools should teach skills that are useful for decisions adults make in their daily lives. Paraphrasing a likely answer choice, it seems like the teacher is assuming that evaluating science based arguements is a useful skill for adults daily lives. That is not explicitly stated in the stimulus, it is an assumption the teacher relies on. If, in fact, we were told that this skill is not useful to adults daily lives, then this would ruin the teacher's argument, because evaluating arguments about practical issues would be just as seldom used (and therefore useless) a skill as abstract knowledge of science.

Answer choice (A) - This is too strong a statement - the teacher says that secondary schools should teach this skill instead of "or perhaps in addition to" , so the teacher is not relying on the assumption that only the most useful skills should be taught.

Answer choice (B) - similar to answer choice (A), this could be true and not undermine the teacher's argument, since both topics could be taught together. The teacher is just making the case that evaluating schience based arguments should be taught at all, because its presumably useful to adult's daily lives

Answer choice (C) - this could be true or false and it would not affect the teacher's argument; so it cannot be a necessary assumption the teacher relies on. In either scenario, the teacher wants to further improve the ability to evaluate science-based arguments, so this answer choice is irrelevant.

Answer choice (D) - the teacher doesn't assume that no courses teach students this; they are just advocating for the reason such courses should be taught: they are useful to adults daily lives.

Answer choice (E) - this is the correct answer. The entire argument is based on the assumption that evaluating science-based arguments is useful in adults daily lives - if it were not, then this skill would be just as useless as abstract science, so this is the correct answer.

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,
what makes B wrong?
I thought it is very tempting.
is it the order of the words in the sentence?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

To help you figure out where you went wrong here, please provide a detailed breakdown of how you understood the argument. Since you’re asking about a Logical Reasoning question, we expect to see evidence that you were able to:

• Deconstruct the stimulus into premises/conclusion.
• Understand whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and if not - why not?
• Correctly identify the type of question in the stem.
• Prephrase an answer to that question. (Don't be afraid if your prephrase was off - we still need to see what it was).
• Defend your choice of (incorrect) answer choice.

The more you tell us about your method of approach, the better we can help you figure it out.

Thanks!

[sthomas0312]

I think I missed this one because I was kind of pressed for time at the end of the section and kind of frustrated for nothing coming to me right away.

Premise: Abstract knowledge of science is very seldom useful in adult decision making.

Counter-Premise: Skills learned in Secondary school should be useful.

Conclusion: Secondary school should teach students to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues.

I am not good at pre-phrasing, but just diagramming that I can see why E is the correct answer choice for this one. for some reason I could not diagram it properly and just guessed on this one. I am just now seeing this, but If you have an assumption question and you if you see and or identify a key word like useful or is that just a coincidence for this question?

[Clay Cooper]

Hi stthomas,

Thanks for your question, and welcome to the forum! I think you will find it a very useful resource.

I think we can diagram this stimulus this way:

If something should be taught in secondary schools, then it is useful.

should be taught useful

Abstract knowledge is rarely useful.

abstract not useful

The conclusion is that we should replace teaching abstract knowledge with teaching students how to evaluate practical arguments based on science. However, we know from the first rule that anything that should be taught must be useful. Therefore, for this argument to be coherent we need to know (as E makes explicit) that evaluating practical arguments based on science is practically useful.

I hope that helps! You are correct that useful is a key word here: it is, in brief, the necessary condition that must be satisfied for us to reach our conclusion, and therefore is an assumption on which the argument depends.

[ashutosh_73]

Below was my thought process while attempting the question. Is it logical?

Premise 1: An abstract knowledge of science seldom useful for the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives.

Premise 2: Skills taught in secondary school should be useful for making daily lives decisions

Conclusion: Therefore, secondary school science courses should teach students to ''evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues'', instead of or perhaps in addition to teaching more abstract aspects of science.


(A) Secondary schools should teach only those skills that are the most useful for the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives.

Conclusion says ''instead of or perhaps in addition'', so option doesn't work. Moreover argument only mentions ''should be useful. Nothing about the degree of usefulness has been mentioned. NOT THE NECESSARY ASSUMPTION.

(B) Teaching secondary school students the more abstract aspects of science is at least as important as teaching them to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues.

Level of importance hasn't been talked about. Maybe, abstract aspects are unimportant, and we still can draw the conclusion. Just the ''usefulness in daily lives'' should be our concern.

(C) Adults who have an abstract knowledge of science are no better at evaluating science-based arguments regarding practical issues than are adults who have no knowledge of science at all.

Negating this choice is actually in line with the PREMISE:1, which says, ''abstract knowledge'' SELDOM useful. Hence, not necessary for the argument.

(D) No secondary school science courses currently teach students how to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues.

So what? Stimulus says ''what should be'' the case. Shouldn't be concerned about the reality.

(E) The ability to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues is sometimes useful in making the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives.

Stimulus goes from making daily life decisions to ''evaluate science based arguments''. The option bridges the GAP.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi ashutosh_73!

Yes, your reasoning overall seems to make sense! To speak to the correct answer choice specifically, it bridges a gap in the argument. Since this is an assumption question, you can test this answer choice using the Assumption Negation technique.

Negated, answer choice (E) would be "The ability to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues is [not] sometimes useful in making the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives." If this were true, the argument would fall apart. That is, it wouldn't follow from the premises that secondary school science classes should teach science-based arguments regarding practical issues. Since the negated statement makes the argument fall apart, this confirms that the answer choice is an assumption on which the argument depends.