PT #33 LR 2 #25, assumption what is your FUNCTION! Forum
-
lawschoolisfun2012
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:56 am
PT #33 LR 2 #25, assumption what is your FUNCTION!
How about PT #33 LR 2 #25? I have no idea why the answer is (E)
-
yzero1
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 4:33 pm
Re: PT #33 LR 2 #25, assumption what is your FUNCTION!
Try negating (E):
"Today's business executives DO NOT have valuable insight into business that academics in business schools do not have"
If business execs don't have any unique valuable insight, the conclusion, which is that schools should allow them to set curricula, doesn't follow. Why should they be allowed to set curricula if they have nothing of value to contribute?
"Today's business executives DO NOT have valuable insight into business that academics in business schools do not have"
If business execs don't have any unique valuable insight, the conclusion, which is that schools should allow them to set curricula, doesn't follow. Why should they be allowed to set curricula if they have nothing of value to contribute?
-
Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: PT #33 LR 2 #25, assumption what is your FUNCTION!
A is incorrect - it uses extreme language. They have NO practical experience that is valuable? Sounds pretty extreme to me, and doesn't address the conclusion.
B. If you look closely it's already kind of stated they rely heaving on hypothetical training. Anyways, what does this add to the conclusion? Nothing. It doesn't talk about why we should let the executives set the curricula! This does nothing to relate to the conclusion, so when we negate it, we only know that the don't only deal with hypotheticals. Okay- but it could still be 90% of the cases, which wouldn't weaken the conclusion in the least bit.
C contradicts the conclusion (very last line) - the author suggests that academics SHOULD teach classes. When we negate it, it strengthens the conclusion! - dead giveaway
D is way out of scope - when was anything outside of getting taught at a business school mentioned? The scope is improving business school education.
E is correct. Here is the dead giveaway: business executives were never mentioned anywhere in the stimulus. So how did the author all of a sudden come to the conclusion that business executives are the best to set the curriculum? You need something that supports that so we have linkage. Bingo! Negate it - if the executives don't have any more valuable insight than academics, then why the heck does the system need to be changed to put them in charge of it? It really hurts the argument.
The key to assumption questions is applying these answer choices to the conclusion.
B. If you look closely it's already kind of stated they rely heaving on hypothetical training. Anyways, what does this add to the conclusion? Nothing. It doesn't talk about why we should let the executives set the curricula! This does nothing to relate to the conclusion, so when we negate it, we only know that the don't only deal with hypotheticals. Okay- but it could still be 90% of the cases, which wouldn't weaken the conclusion in the least bit.
C contradicts the conclusion (very last line) - the author suggests that academics SHOULD teach classes. When we negate it, it strengthens the conclusion! - dead giveaway
D is way out of scope - when was anything outside of getting taught at a business school mentioned? The scope is improving business school education.
E is correct. Here is the dead giveaway: business executives were never mentioned anywhere in the stimulus. So how did the author all of a sudden come to the conclusion that business executives are the best to set the curriculum? You need something that supports that so we have linkage. Bingo! Negate it - if the executives don't have any more valuable insight than academics, then why the heck does the system need to be changed to put them in charge of it? It really hurts the argument.
The key to assumption questions is applying these answer choices to the conclusion.
