#25 - Proposals for extending the United States school year

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this stimulus, the author discusses the concept of lengthening the school year, and the opposition to the change based on tradition. The author asserts that this appeal to tradition misses the fact that the three month summer break was based on agricultural-era labor needs, and that the tradition that should be respected was that of basing the school year on economic needs.

The question stem requires that we find the principle that would strengthen the author’s argument. Only correct answer choice (E) provides a principle which bolsters the claims from the stimulus. If this principle is accepted, it strengthens the author’s claim that the important part of the referenced tradition was its basis on the needs of the economy.

[PositiveThinker]

I see how E is right but can someone explain how D is incorrect?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi Positive Thinker,

Let's isolate the reasoning behind the author's thinking:

• The author disagrees with the objection that curtailing summer vacation would violate an established American tradition. In other words, the author contends that curtailing summer vacation would not violate an established American tradition.

Why does the author believe this?

• She cites the thinking that the tradition behind summer vacation is based on rural, agrarian economic concerns, not relevant to modern America.

Our job is to connect the dots between this premise and the conclusion. We must create a rule that, if accepted, would strengthen the connection between this premise and the author's conclusion.

To prephrase, we might think, "How could we use the evidence in the premise to establish that curtailing summer vacation wouldn't violate an American tradition?" or "The credited answer must show a way that curtailing summer vacation wouldn't violate an American tradition."

Notice now the distinction between (D) and (E). (D) does not make this connection. Just as the author does, it presupposes but does not make explicit that the agrarian tradition is in fact the tradition that curtailing summer vacation would violate. Further, the author does not in fact suggest that school year length should be determined by economic interests. Instead, the author uses this supposition as a rebuttal to the position of those who are against curtailing the school year based on tradition. In other words, answer choice (D) connects a faulty assumption with something that is not the conclusion. Thus, it doesn't quite do the job here.

On the other hand, (E) makes a direct connection between whether the tradition in question re summer vacation actually is the rural, agrarian tradition. It lessens the possibility that perhaps the critics are right—curtailing summer vacation would violate an American tradition—by establishing that these critics must be concerned with the original tradition behind summer vacation and not some other, more recent tradition.

I hope this helps!

[biskam]

to be clear, the conclusion in the stimulus is "however this objection misses its mark" aka maybe this isn't the right tradition we should be talking about....

[Dave Killoran]

to be clear, the conclusion in the stimulus is "however this objection misses its mark" aka maybe this isn't the right tradition we should be talking about....

Correct—the section you quote is the entire conclusion. Good job!

[Mastering_LSAT]

Hi there,

I found this problem very challenging, and was wondering if you could confirm the correctness of my reasoning and argument breakdown.

Argument breakdown.

Premise 1. Critics claim that curtailing the schools’ 3-months summer vacation would violate an established XIX century U.S. tradition [It appears that critics define tradition as, or equate tradition to, having the 3-months summer vacation in schools; Tradition NOT Violated --> 3-Months Summer Vacation in Schools Remains].

Premise 2. A person who argues against critics: back in XIX century, the economic needs (using children’s labor during harvest) served as the reason for 3-months summer vacation in schools [The 3-months summer vacation in schools served as the effect/consequence of the economic needs to use children’s labor during harvest in XIX century].

Premise 3. A person who argues against critics: for a tradition to be not violated, it is required to take into account the economic needs [It appears that a person who argues against critics defines tradition as, or equates tradition to, taking economic needs into account; Tradition NOT Violated --> Economic Needs Taken into Account]

Conclusion. A person who argues against critics: critics are WRONG in thinking that curtailing the schools 3-months summer vacation would violate an established XIX century U.S. tradition [i.e., Critics are WRONG in thinking that Canceling 3-Months Summer Vacation in Schools --> Tradition Violated, which is the same as Tradition NOT Violated --> 3-Months Summer Vacation in Schools Remains].

Analysis.

From the argument, it appears that there is misunderstanding between critics and a person who argues against them as to what actually constitutes “tradition”.

Critics equate tradition to 3-months summer vacation in schools, and believe that canceling 3-months summer vacation would necessarily lead to violation of tradition. Whereas a person who argues against critics, sees 3-months summer vacation as a consequence (effect) of the economic needs to use children’s labor during harvest back in XIX century. From here, the argument against critics proceeds to define tradition alternatively as taking into account the economic needs. Again, a person who argues against critics considers 3-months summer vacation in schools as a consequence of tradition, rather than tradition itself.

Correct Answer Choice (E).

Correct answer choice helps us to resolve discrepancy between two different definitions (understandings) of “tradition,” and tells us to believe the definition of a person who argues against critics (Tradition NOT Violated --> Economic Needs Taken into Account). If we take the latter definition as true, then it becomes clear that 3-months summer vacation in schools is not an integral component of tradition, it is a mere consequence of tradition which depends on economic needs only. From here, we can see that canceling 3-months summer vacation in schools would not necessarily lead to violation of tradition, only not taking economic needs into account would.

Is it fair to say that critics are wrong (and the argument is strengthened) because the correct answer choice tells us to believe a person who argues against critics in what constitutes “tradition” (Tradition NOT Violated --> Economic Needs Taken into Account), which means that NOT Taking Economic Needs into Account is the ONLY WAY for Tradition to be Violated? Therefore, critics are WRONG that Canceling 3-Months Summer Vacation in Schools Necessarily Leads (-->) to Tradition Violated?

Wrong Answer Choice (D).

Economic Needs Not Taken into Account --> Tradition Discarded

The stimulus never talked about discarding traditional principles. All we know is that when economic needs are not taken into account --> tradition violated (violating of tradition is not the same as getting rid of it).

Would greatly appreciate your comment on this way of thinking. Many thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

You've earned your username here, Mastering! That was an excellent analysis, both for what made the correct answer correct and for why D was incorrect and did not strengthen the argument! Well done, my friend!

[Mastering_LSAT]

Thanks, Adam! Greatly appreciate your help and kind words.