76 S4 Q21 (the second LR section） Forum

[sd1111]

With this question, I really confused why C is the correct answer choice and why B is incorrect.

Manhattan forum says it could be the students who completed the program were good at intellentual activity at the first place. Then the argument could be weaken. However, I think the word "subsequently" in the answer choice also could indicate the only after they completed the program they became intelligent and had a good GPA.

Really confused. Thanks in advance.

[appind]

i too found subsequently confusing the same way. interested in this as well.

[Blueprint Mithun]

With this question, I really confused why C is the correct answer choice and why B is incorrect.

Manhattan forum says it could be the students who completed the program were good at intellentual activity at the first place. Then the argument could be weaken. However, I think the word "subsequently" in the answer choice also could indicate the only after they completed the program they became intelligent and had a good GPA.

Really confused. Thanks in advance.

This is a hard question, despite the fact that we have a typical "correlation to causation" leap being made. The premise states that most children who completed the program started doing better in school soon after, and concludes that this is because their chess skills translated over into academic achievement.

Whenever you see cause-and-effect on a Weaken, brainstorm and look out for a possible alternate cause (such is the way of Blueprint ). Remember that presenting any alternate cause will weaken a cause-and-effect argument. What's another reason that the kids who finished the chess program might have started getting better grades?

(B) presents an alternate reason, though the way it's phrased doesn't exactly scream that out.

"Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school chess team that required a high grade average for membership."

After completing the chess program, these kids got super hyped about playing chess, and wanted to join the chess team. Doing so required high grades, so what the answer is suggesting is that their newfound motivation to join the team drove them to work harder and get better grades.

The word "subsequently" is important - it was only after they got a taste of that sweet, sweet chess in the program that they were motivated to try and join the chess team. But the answer doesn't suggest that they got more intelligent/academic proficient from doing the program - it's only the conclusion that makes that leap.

[appind]

With this question, I really confused why C is the correct answer choice and why B is incorrect.

Manhattan forum says it could be the students who completed the program were good at intellentual activity at the first place. Then the argument could be weaken. However, I think the word "subsequently" in the answer choice also could indicate the only after they completed the program they became intelligent and had a good GPA.

Really confused. Thanks in advance.

This is a hard question, despite the fact that we have a typical "correlation to causation" leap being made. The premise states that most children who completed the program started doing better in school soon after, and concludes that this is because their chess skills translated over into academic achievement.

Whenever you see cause-and-effect on a Weaken, brainstorm and look out for a possible alternate cause (such is the way of Blueprint ). Remember that presenting any alternate cause will weaken a cause-and-effect argument. What's another reason that the kids who finished the chess program might have started getting better grades?

(B) presents an alternate reason, though the way it's phrased doesn't exactly scream that out.

"Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school chess team that required a high grade average for membership."

After completing the chess program, these kids got super hyped about playing chess, and wanted to join the chess team. Doing so required high grades, so what the answer is suggesting is that their newfound motivation to join the team drove them to work harder and get better grades.

The word "subsequently" is important - it was only after they got a taste of that sweet, sweet chess in the program that they were motivated to try and join the chess team. But the answer doesn't suggest that they got more intelligent/academic proficient from doing the program - it's only the conclusion that makes that leap.

I think you mean C instead of B. Doesn't b also present an alternate reason that children who completed were naturally better (higher preprogram achievement)?
For c, how does "many" weaken a conclusion based on most?

[sd1111]

With this question, I really confused why C is the correct answer choice and why B is incorrect.

Manhattan forum says it could be the students who completed the program were good at intellentual activity at the first place. Then the argument could be weaken. However, I think the word "subsequently" in the answer choice also could indicate the only after they completed the program they became intelligent and had a good GPA.

Really confused. Thanks in advance.

This is a hard question, despite the fact that we have a typical "correlation to causation" leap being made. The premise states that most children who completed the program started doing better in school soon after, and concludes that this is because their chess skills translated over into academic achievement.

Whenever you see cause-and-effect on a Weaken, brainstorm and look out for a possible alternate cause (such is the way of Blueprint ). Remember that presenting any alternate cause will weaken a cause-and-effect argument. What's another reason that the kids who finished the chess program might have started getting better grades?

(B) presents an alternate reason, though the way it's phrased doesn't exactly scream that out.

"Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school chess team that required a high grade average for membership."

After completing the chess program, these kids got super hyped about playing chess, and wanted to join the chess team. Doing so required high grades, so what the answer is suggesting is that their newfound motivation to join the team drove them to work harder and get better grades.

The word "subsequently" is important - it was only after they got a taste of that sweet, sweet chess in the program that they were motivated to try and join the chess team. But the answer doesn't suggest that they got more intelligent/academic proficient from doing the program - it's only the conclusion that makes that leap.

I think you mean C instead of B. Doesn't b also present an alternate reason that children who completed were naturally better (higher preprogram achievement)?
For c, how does "many" weaken a conclusion based on most?

I noticed in the newer PTs, several Weaken/Strenghten questions' CORRECT answer choice using MANY, which is different from the older PTs.

[Blueprint Mithun]

With this question, I really confused why C is the correct answer choice and why B is incorrect.

Manhattan forum says it could be the students who completed the program were good at intellentual activity at the first place. Then the argument could be weaken. However, I think the word "subsequently" in the answer choice also could indicate the only after they completed the program they became intelligent and had a good GPA.

Really confused. Thanks in advance.

This is a hard question, despite the fact that we have a typical "correlation to causation" leap being made. The premise states that most children who completed the program started doing better in school soon after, and concludes that this is because their chess skills translated over into academic achievement.

Whenever you see cause-and-effect on a Weaken, brainstorm and look out for a possible alternate cause (such is the way of Blueprint ). Remember that presenting any alternate cause will weaken a cause-and-effect argument. What's another reason that the kids who finished the chess program might have started getting better grades?

(B) presents an alternate reason, though the way it's phrased doesn't exactly scream that out.

"Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school chess team that required a high grade average for membership."

After completing the chess program, these kids got super hyped about playing chess, and wanted to join the chess team. Doing so required high grades, so what the answer is suggesting is that their newfound motivation to join the team drove them to work harder and get better grades.

The word "subsequently" is important - it was only after they got a taste of that sweet, sweet chess in the program that they were motivated to try and join the chess team. But the answer doesn't suggest that they got more intelligent/academic proficient from doing the program - it's only the conclusion that makes that leap.

I think you mean C instead of B. Doesn't b also present an alternate reason that children who completed were naturally better (higher preprogram achievement)?
For c, how does "many" weaken a conclusion based on most?

I did mean C instead of B.

In C, "many" still works because this is a Weaken question. We're not being tasked with finding an answer that would completely discredit the conclusion, it just has to make it less likely to be valid.

If many/some of the kids did better in school because of their motivation to join the chess team, and not because chess made them "smarter," then that's good enough for us. The conclusion says "it is likely" that their chess-based skills helped them in other intellectual areas; by introducing C, it is now less likely. How much less likely? Doesn't matter.

B says: Those children who began the program but who did not successfully complete it had lower preprogram levels of achievement than did those who eventually did successfully complete the program.

The problem with this answer is that the kids who didn't complete the chess program don't matter. In the premise, we are told that "most of the children who completed the program soon showed a significant increase in achievement levels in all of their schoolwork." So whether or not they started the program with high or low levels of achievement is irrelevant, because we know that they showed an increase after the course. Why the increase? What happened after completing the chess program?

In fact, if those kids who completed it had a high (or relatively high) level of achievement before the program, wouldn't it have been even harder for them to see an increase, as there was less loom for improvement?