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

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[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.