#21 - Some educators claim that it is best that school

[Rosaline]

I never considered D as an option. Could someone please explain why D is correct and A is wrong? A was appealing to me because the stimulus mentions how understanding significance helps students and A talks about how plants and animals can be useful. Thank you!

[saffron]

I also had this issue - can someone please explain why D is right and A is wrong?

[LSAT2018]

The stimulus reads, 'These educators argue that if students achieve a solid grasp of the basic concepts and investigatory techniques in a subject, they will be able to explore the breadth of that subject on their own after the course is over.'


So for the correct answer (D), analyzing a few Greek tragedies is consistent with concepts and investigatory techniques, and that it is easier to understand any Greek tragedy after is also consistent with the ability to explore the breadth of that subject on their own after the course is over. The shift is from few to any, something narrow in scope to something broader in scope.

[Francis O'Rourke]

The educators' argue that it is better for students to learn basic subject matter in depth. They tell us that students who have learned the fundamentals of a subject matter in depth will more easily be able to understand "the breadth of that subject" later on.

The educators also compare this method to teaching students "a lot of factual information," but without a lot of depth to that information. Teaching students this latter way does not equip them to study well on their own later on.

The question stem asks us to use the reasoning in the stimulus to prove one of the following statements in the answer choices. This is a Must Be True question.

Constructing a prephrase for this question is a bit difficult, as there is no obvious single inference that we can draw from the argument. It may be helpful to restate or summarize the argument such as "a student who learns the basics in depth will do better with later material in that subject."

Regardless of what sort of prephrase you constructed, we can use the Fact Test to eliminate the incorrect answer choices. Remember that any answer choice that makes claims not supported by the stimulus will be incorrect.

Answer choice (A) states that it is easier to understand how organisms are classified after one learns how those organisms can be useful. This answer choice discuss ease of learning, which was a topic discussed in the educators' argument. However, this answer states that future learning is aided by knowing how something "can be useful." Utility was never discussed in the stimulus, nor can we infer utility from anything in the stimulus, so this answer choice fails the fact test.


Answer choice (D) also discusses ease of future understanding. In this case we are dealing with Greek tragedy. Since the educators discussed school subjects, and tragedy is often taught in literature classes, we can apply their argument to this topic. This answer choice tells us that it is easier to understand Greek tragedies after one has first "analyzed a few of them in detail."

This statement is perfectly supported by the educators' argument. As LSAT2018 wrote above, the educators told us that it is easier to understand any subject after learning a little of it in detail. The educators' general argument can be applied to this specific instance of someone learning about a few Greek tragedies in detail.

[Rosaline]

Thank you both! I understand now.

[Elmo4lsat]

Hello there,

It would be great if you can clarify the reasoning behind why E is incorrect . I selected E because the stimulus mentions: "cover only basic subject matter, but cover it in depth." To me, basic and simple matched.

However, I can see how the second part of the AC which states: "than to learn a few complicated ideas well," isn't really supported by the information in the stimulus. The stimulus talk about "a lot of factual information" and not a few of it.

I didn't classify D as a contender because I thought that a Greek tragedy is not consider it a basic subject in literature/theatre. And, it was surprising to me that the stimulus played more on the "depth" than the "basic" for how some educators claim is the best way to cover courses.

I would love your input on this as I can observe that I'm making making some mental associations/ dis-associations that aren't being useful for the way the LSAT test-makers think.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Elmo,

Unfortunately, by equating "basic" with "simple," you fell for the test makers' trap. They definitely realize that many people will make that assumption, which is why Answer E can be so tempting.

While "basic" can mean "simple," here "basic subject matters" are describing "fundamental" or "core" subjects that may or may not actually be simple. And the fact that these fundamental subjects are supposed to be covered in depth does not suggest simple. "Depth" indicates complexity, whereas a superficial level of understanding would be a simpler understanding.

For Answer E, "many simple ideas" would most closely match "simply learn a lot of factual information" in the stimulus, which the educators do not recommend. Answer E actually goes against the recommendations in the stimulus, which is to study a few core subjects well/in depth.

As for Answer D, Greek tragedy likely would be considered a basic (again, meaning foundational/core) subject of literature/theater, although it is understandable if you weren't 100% sure about this. If you're ever unsure in this type of situation, if the answer otherwise looks correct/better than the other answers, I'd still recommend choosing it.

Unfortunately, as you mentioned in your comment, it looks like you may have been focused mostly on the "basic" idea in the stimulus rather than the "depth" idea, which was the real key. One way to realize the importance of the "depth" criteria is to compare/contrast it to the other option that is not recommended, which describes "learn[ing] a lot of factual information, without truly understanding its significance." This is describing a broad but superficial understanding of material without depth.