Q17 - Teachers should not do anything

[mitchliao]

Can someone please explain through step by step, their line of reasoning why (E) is the correct answer?

I got the question right, through "intuition" because it sounds right in my head, but for some reason I can't diagram it logically why it is the case. Or should I not be thinking of this question in terms of a step by step "diagram." If not, then how should I be approaching this question?

I really would not like to rely on "intuition" and what "sounds right" to get the right answer choice.

[giladedelman]

You're absolutely correct that intuition and "what sounds right" are not our best friends on the LSAT. We want to have a firm, logical reason for choosing the answers we do.

At the same time, that doesn't mean we should be diagramming every question. It's unnecessary, and there's not enough time for that. I tend to try to picture the argument in my mind's eye, keeping the premise(s) on the left and the conclusion on the right.

Anyway, let's take a look at this one. We have two premises: teachers shouldn't do anything to lose their students' respect, and students can sense when someone's trying to hide his own ignorance. From these premises, the argument concludes that teachers shouldn't pretend to know an answer -- in other words, that they shouldn't try to hide their own ignorance.

Hmm. What's missing here? We know that teachers shouldn't do anything to lose students' respect. That's the only fact we know about what teachers should or shouldn't do. So for us to conclude that they shouldn't try to hide their own ignorance, we must be assuming that hiding one's ignorance falls into the category of things that cause students to lose respect. If it falls into that category, then we could logically conclude that teachers shouldn't do it.

That's why (E) is correct. If students lose respect whenever they sense teachers hiding their ignorance, and we know teachers shouldn't allow students to lose respect for them, then it definitely follows that teachers shouldn't try to hide their ignorance.

(A) is out of scope because the argument isn't concerned with teacher "effectiveness."

(B) doesn't help us because we still need to know that hiding ignorance causes students to lose respect.

(C) is wrong for the same reason. It doesn't tell us anything about students losing respect for teachers.

(D) is totally out of scope. Whether teachers can sense students' respect has no bearing on what they should or shouldn't do.

Does that clear this one up for you? Let me know if you're still struggling with the logic.

[mitchliao]

Thanks so much for your help! I followed your reasoning up to this point...

That's why (E) is correct. If students lose respect whenever they sense teachers hiding their ignorance, and we know teachers shouldn't allow students to lose respect for them, then it definitely follows that teachers shouldn't try to hide their ignorance.

But I can't seem to follow your logic for this last part. Knowing those two premises in my mind, doesn't definitely follow that "teachers shouldn't try to hide their ignorance." Can you please explain?

This is the line of reasoning that I came up with, I tried to make it as straightforward as possible. If you can, let me know if there's anything wrong with it. Thanks so much!

Premise 1: If teacher, then teacher should not do anything to cause their student to lose respect for them.

Premise 2: If someone is trying to hide his or her ignorance, then students can sense that someone is trying to hide his or her ignorance.
Logical opposite of Premise 2: If students cannot sense that someone is trying to hide his or her ignorance, then someone is not trying to hide his or her ignorance

Conclusion: If teacher, then teacher should not pretend to know the answer
(Assuming teacher should not pretend to know the answer = teacher should not try to hide his or her ignorance <--- Thank you so much for this intuition)
Same Conclusion but in different wording: If teacher -> teacher should not try to hide his or her ignorance.

Where is the hole?
Needed premise (hole): Teacher should not do anything to cause their student to lose respect for them -> Students cannot sense that someone is trying to hide his or her ignorance.

Contrapositive of Needed Premise (hole): Students sense that someone is trying to hide his or her ignorance -> should do anything to cause their students to lose respect for them.

Correct Answer Choice as stated in (E): If Students sense that the teachers are trying to hide their ignorance, then students lose respect for the teachers

This correct answer choice is the same as the contrapositive of the needed premise (assuming that "teachers should do anything to cause their students to lose respect for them = students lose respect for the teachers")

[giladedelman]

I'm not sure I follow your approach. I am sure that you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. For one thing, since there are no conditional statements here, it doesn't make sense to be looking for contrapositives.

We have two premises:

1) teachers shouldn't do things to lose students' respect
2) students can sense when someone is hiding his ignorance

Then the conclusion, as we've translated it:

A teacher shouldn't hide his own ignorance.

The gap here is between "losing students' respect" and "hiding ignorance." But if we assume (E), that students lose respect whenever they sense a teacher trying to hide his ignorance, the argument makes sense:

teacher hides ignorance --> student senses it --> students loses respect

So hiding ignorance would lead to a loss of student respect, which we're told is a no-no for a teacher! So if we assume (E), the conclusion follows from the premises.

[abkrusemark]

I agree that E is the best answer, but I think B is tricky. If students respect honesty above all else, then a teacher who is pretending to know the answer (aka lying about it) is not being honest. S/he will therefore not fulfill students' most important criteria. But it is a stretch to say that s/he will go on to lose their respect because of this.