mz253 wrote:i get C will strengthen P's argument... but the question stem asks us to "counter Q's argument," i still don't understand why you don't choose B, which actually weaken Q's argument?
or i just cannot be save?
I'll give it a try. So, first off, you're definitely right that you should be looking to weaken Q's argument. But before you can really tell which answer choice does that, it'll probably be helpful to look at Q's argument first.
Q's Conclusion specifically states 'That would be pointless'. First, I'm going to replace the word 'that', since it's sorta ambiguous, with P's sugggestion. So our
real conclusion reads:
"The proposal to introduce computers in kindergarten and comp languages in high school is pointless".
And Q's reason is that 'the advances in tech is super fast, and so the computer stuff children would learn (in both kindergarten and high school) would eventually become obsolete'.
First off, I suspect that what may have been throwing you off a bit, is the fact that Q's reason for his conclusion is a subsidiary argument (at least in my interpretation of the argument). Since we have a subtly hidden sub-argument, I'll go ahead and clean up the stimulus a bit so that you can see what Q is basically saying.
---------
Clean-up
Subsidiary Premise: The advances in technology super fast.
Subsidiary Conclusion: ...because of this, the comp stuff will eventually become obsolete.
Main Conclusion: So there isn't any point to introducing comp stuff to kids in school.
-------------
Having broken the argument down a bit, I suspect your attraction to answer choice B is because of its connection to the subsidiary premise. But what specifically is (B) saying about Q's subsidiary premise? First, (B)
takes away a reason why the 'rapid progression' of technology' might harm children in
one specific way, i.e. that the kids aren't going to be able to adapt to technology.
At this point, we should ask ourselves if (B) does in fact weaken what Q is saying. Does Q ever say that children are '
not going to be able to adapt to advancing technology'? He would have to be saying that for (B) to weaken his argument. Upon closer examination though, we can see that Q isn't saying that kids won't be able adapt... no, Q is saying that whatever they end up learning as kids just
won't be useful at all (i.e. obsolete) when they become adults, presumably because they'll have to learn all sorts of new technology and stuff.
Personally I find it helpful, anytime I'm confused with an argument, to force myself to focus in on the conclusion of the argument. Any correct weaken or correct strengthen question will have some sort of impact on the conclusion of the argument, even if it may be slight.
My point here is that, since our conclusion in this argument is that 'introducing comp stuff to kids in school is pointless', it seems like the correct weaken answer choice is likely going to suggest (even in perhaps a delicate way) that there is, in fact, a point to introducing comp stuff.
So C, which does suggest that there is a reason or point to introducing computers to kids,
both weakens Q's claim that it would be 'pointless' (by adding a reason why there would be a point)
and strengthens P's claim that computer's should be introduced (by adding a reason why they should). Yeah, it sorta is confusing that it does both, but it helps to focus on what should be our only relevant question in attacking this answer choices here, which is 'does this answer weaken Q's argument (conclusion)?'
Boy... this was longer than I intended. Hope you find this helpful