#3 - Teacher: Participating in organized competitive

[oli_oops]

Hello,

this might seem like a stupid question, but I did not choose A because I thought while A stated "adopting a policy", the stimulus said "funding for ....should not be eliminated", so to me, it isn't really a "policy adoption", it meant that the policy was already in place.

And can someone please explain what E means? I'm very confused by what E is supposed to say.

Thank you so much!
oli

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Oli_oops,
I initially ruled out A for the same reason. The credited logic is that continuing a process/policy could still involve adopting a new policy (for example when a prior policy was set to expire).

Answer E could be rephrased to say something like 'It opposes the teacher's position, which is that the funding for children's athletic programs shouldn't be eliminated.' However, the statement supports the teacher's position, so this answer does not work.

Hope that helps,
-Malila

[Tuothekhazar]

Hi

Just would like to share my thoughts on this questions, since in order to quickly eliminate the wrongs and to select the right one, we need to not only macro-analyze the structures of the argument but to micro-identify the different subjects mentioned from the premises.

The whole hypothesis as the argument is that

1. Participating in organized competitive athletics may increase a child's strength and coordination.

* People be discussed within the first premise is " All children "

2. The fact of first premise, as critic point out, however, also stills in those " children who are not already well developed in these respects " a feeling of inferiority that never really disappears.

* People be discussed within the second premise is " Children who are not already well developed in the respect mentioned in the first premise "

3. Since research has shown that adults with feelings of inferiority become more successful than those free of such anxieties.

* People be discussed here are people who are 1. adults. 2. adults with feelings of .... such anxieties

Conclusion - Funding for children's athletic programs should not be eliminated.

Important points to share here:

1. So, apparently, author presumed people discussed from premise 2nd be sufficiently be whom discussed from premise 3rd when they grow up.

2. there are * only 2 reasons - ( Premise 1 ) and ( Premise 2& 3) as premise 2nd serves as the concession of premise 3 to support the conclusion, and the whole argument is hypothesis.

So let us look into the answers.

B. its not the claim teacher attempts to refute with counterarguments, and as we discussed above, premise 2nd serves as the concession of premise 3rd. More importantly, they do not discuss the same group of people.

C. The hypothesis here is the whole argument, and the addition evidence is the premise 3rd followed by premise 2nd.

D. It is not insufficient. In fact, there is no any sufficient/ necessary relationship here within the argument.

E. There is no any objection cited from teacher to the point that teacher is supporting.


Correct answer A - It is mentioned as one possible reason ( premise 1 ) for adopting a police ( conclusion ) for which the teacher suggests an addition reason ( Premise 3 & 2 )


Just my humble 2 cents share here...

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Tuothekhazar, thanks for sharing your approach to the question! And nice job getting this one.