- Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:02 pm
#33429
Hi J,
The speaker in the stimulus says that teaching pre-university students calculus can benefit them, but that if they can't handle the abstraction involved, they might stop studying math. She concludes that we need to be sure students can handle the abstraction before teaching them calculus.
This is actually a Strengthen question (the "most" before Justify takes this down from a Justify question to a plain old Strengthen question). This argument contains a sneaky assumption: that we shouldn't risk turning students off to math! Lots of Strengthen questions contain this format: they tell you a set of facts, and then tell you that something should be done based on those facts. But they don't tell you why you should do the thing they want you to.
The right answer will tell you why. We can assume all principles in these Strengthen questions to be valid.
Answer choice (A): If this is true, then we shouldn't teach students a new topic unless we know that they will not lose motivation due to the new challenge. Since some students will lose their motivation to study math due to the new challenges that calculus poses, this answer choice directly supports the argument. We ought to be careful about teaching pre-university student calculus; we shouldn't just teach it to everyone.
Answer choice (B): What does "concrete" mean? We don't know. This does nothing to connect 'would lose motivation' with 'shouldn't teach them.'
Answer choice (C): This is very, very tempting. But the stimulus never mentions "exceptional effort." If the stimulus said that dealing with the level of abstraction in calculus requires exceptional effort, then this answer choice would be correct. But it doesn't, and we cannot assume that that is true.
Answer choice (D): Completely out of scope. We don't care about teaching techniques.
Answer choice (E): This directly contradicts the stimulus.
Hope this helps!