Hi arvinm123!
In the stimulus, we learn that statistics teachers often debate whether to teach the underlying theories or to focus on methods for solving real problems. The author then makes use of an analogy, stated that current statistics courses focus their time on building the care (understanding the underlying theories) and if there is extra time, they teach students how to drive (use statistical methods to solve real problems).
They continue the analogy by stating that ordinary drivers to do not need to know how to build a car to drive one. Right away, this indicates that ordinary students do not need to know the underlying statistical theories in order to solve problems (what I have done here is simply replace the driving analogy with the respective parts of statistics). This will serve as a good prephrase for the rest of the argument!
Turning to answer choice (C), we can see that this isn't quite what our prephrase said. Sure, the author probably would agree that statistics teachers should focus on providing useful skills to students, but does that logically complete the sentence in an analogous way to the stimulus? No! Remember,
language is critically important on the LSAT. What might seem like a simple rephrase in every day life is often distinct on the exam, and it makes sense too! Stating that statistics teachers
should do something is very different than stating someone
does not need to know something.
Great job selecting answer choice (D) instead! This answer choice perfectly lines up with the nature of the stimulus and our prephrase. Just like how drivers don't need to be able to build a car to drive, students don't need to know the underlying theories of statistics to solve real problems.
Hope this helps!
Kate
