Top Law Schools

I chose B and here's my analysis.

parent P: children will need computer skills, so we should do blah blah blah..
parent Q: the blah blah blah is pointless because technology changes so fast so that what they learn today will become "obsolete"

so in order to counter Q, the best argument should be "obsolete" is not a problem, so there's an advantage that overweighs the "obsolete" disadvantage.

I chose B because i think this argument says " children can adapt to the changes" even though the technology will change very fast, but i kind of doubt the "equally"

I did not choose C because I feel this is kind of irrelevant...

Anyone can help?

I like this one.

The question asks us to find a response parent P could make in response to parent Q. Parent P is advocating that we should introduce all sorts of technology into the classroom, especially at an early age. Parent Q is saying that introducing all that technology is pointless, because by the time the kids grow up, the technology will have changed and the stuff they learned would be outdated. Since we're seeking to support parent P we need to find a reason why introducing technology at early age would be a benefit.

(A) sounds like a reason you would want to teach technology in the class room, hold for now.
(B) says that we will be able to adapt to new technology, but not why it would be a benefit.
(C) sounds like a reason why you would want technology in the classroom at an early age - it increases your ability to adapt to technology in the future. Hold for now.
(D) undermines parent P, rather than supporting parent P.
(E) advances parent P's argument, but not as a response to parent Q.

Let's look back at answer choices (A) and (C). Answer choice (A) talks about how to maintain proficiency but not about why learning technology at an early age on stuff that will be eventually outdated could still be an advantage. Answer choice (C), however, gives us a reason why learning technology that will eventually be outdated will still be useful.

i wonder why we have to find an answer that says "introducing technology at early age would be a benefit." the question stem asks us to "counter" Q's argument...

So i still think B is a better answer... because it weakens B's argument... and make B's "obsolete" reason no longer a valid challenge to P's original proposal.

any thoughts?

matt@atlaslsat wrote:I like this one.

The question asks us to find a response parent P could make in response to parent Q. Parent P is advocating that we should introduce all sorts of technology into the classroom, especially at an early age. Parent Q is saying that introducing all that technology is pointless, because by the time the kids grow up, the technology will have changed and the stuff they learned would be outdated. Since we're seeking to support parent P we need to find a reason why introducing technology at early age would be a benefit.

(A) sounds like a reason you would want to teach technology in the class room, hold for now.
(B) says that we will be able to adapt to new technology, but not why it would be a benefit.
(C) sounds like a reason why you would want technology in the classroom at an early age - it increases your ability to adapt to technology in the future. Hold for now.
(D) undermines parent P, rather than supporting parent P.
(E) advances parent P's argument, but not as a response to parent Q.

Let's look back at answer choices (A) and (C). Answer choice (A) talks about how to maintain proficiency but not about why learning technology at an early age on stuff that will be eventually outdated could still be an advantage. Answer choice (C), however, gives us a reason why learning technology that will eventually be outdated will still be useful.

mz253 wrote:i wonder why we have to find an answer that says "introducing technology at early age would be a benefit." the question stem asks us to "counter" Q's argument...

So i still think B is a better answer... because it weakens B's argument... and make B's "obsolete" reason no longer a valid challenge to P's original proposal.

any thoughts?

matt@atlaslsat wrote:I like this one.

The question asks us to find a response parent P could make in response to parent Q. Parent P is advocating that we should introduce all sorts of technology into the classroom, especially at an early age. Parent Q is saying that introducing all that technology is pointless, because by the time the kids grow up, the technology will have changed and the stuff they learned would be outdated. Since we're seeking to support parent P we need to find a reason why introducing technology at early age would be a benefit.

(A) sounds like a reason you would want to teach technology in the class room, hold for now.
(B) says that we will be able to adapt to new technology, but not why it would be a benefit.
(C) sounds like a reason why you would want technology in the classroom at an early age - it increases your ability to adapt to technology in the future. Hold for now.
(D) undermines parent P, rather than supporting parent P.
(E) advances parent P's argument, but not as a response to parent Q.

Let's look back at answer choices (A) and (C). Answer choice (A) talks about how to maintain proficiency but not about why learning technology at an early age on stuff that will be eventually outdated could still be an advantage. Answer choice (C), however, gives us a reason why learning technology that will eventually be outdated will still be useful.

(B) just says that the kids will adapt to the new tech, so they'll be fine when the new stuff comes out. If you learned how to code in DOS, you could still figure out how to use an iPad. So having the kids learn technology that will go obsolete won't actively hurt them. But that doesn't mean that it will actually help. It could be the same as making the kids all learn how to knit or learn Swahili. (B) means It won't hurt their (future) computer skills, but it's not necessarily going to be helping them either. It could still be utterly pointless even if it's not actively harmful, and Q could still be totally correct.

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?

bp colin wrote:

mz253 wrote:i wonder why we have to find an answer that says "introducing technology at early age would be a benefit." the question stem asks us to "counter" Q's argument...

So i still think B is a better answer... because it weakens B's argument... and make B's "obsolete" reason no longer a valid challenge to P's original proposal.

any thoughts?

matt@atlaslsat wrote:I like this one.

The question asks us to find a response parent P could make in response to parent Q. Parent P is advocating that we should introduce all sorts of technology into the classroom, especially at an early age. Parent Q is saying that introducing all that technology is pointless, because by the time the kids grow up, the technology will have changed and the stuff they learned would be outdated. Since we're seeking to support parent P we need to find a reason why introducing technology at early age would be a benefit.

(A) sounds like a reason you would want to teach technology in the class room, hold for now.
(B) says that we will be able to adapt to new technology, but not why it would be a benefit.
(C) sounds like a reason why you would want technology in the classroom at an early age - it increases your ability to adapt to technology in the future. Hold for now.
(D) undermines parent P, rather than supporting parent P.
(E) advances parent P's argument, but not as a response to parent Q.

Let's look back at answer choices (A) and (C). Answer choice (A) talks about how to maintain proficiency but not about why learning technology at an early age on stuff that will be eventually outdated could still be an advantage. Answer choice (C), however, gives us a reason why learning technology that will eventually be outdated will still be useful.

(B) just says that the kids will adapt to the new tech, so they'll be fine when the new stuff comes out. If you learned how to code in DOS, you could still figure out how to use an iPad. So having the kids learn technology that will go obsolete won't actively hurt them. But that doesn't mean that it will actually help. It could be the same as making the kids all learn how to knit or learn Swahili. (B) means It won't hurt their (future) computer skills, but it's not necessarily going to be helping them either. It could still be utterly pointless even if it's not actively harmful, and Q could still be totally correct.

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