Q20 - Dana: It is wrong to think

[kimjy89]

How are answer choices B and E different?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You have a knack for getting down to the two most tempting answers!

Let's look at answer choices (B) and (E).

(B) suggests that children should adapt to the educational methods being used.
(E) suggests that the educational methods being used should be adapted to children.

It's a matter of whether the children or the curriculum should be the ones to adapt...

Dana's point is that curriculum should always be adapted to the children.

Pat's point is that sometimes children should learn to adapt to the curriculum.

The Point of Disagreement is whether children should ever be forced to adapt to the curriculum. Dana would say "no," whereas Pat would say "yes."

The best way to approach a question like this when you're down to answer choices (B) and (E) is to ask yourself, would either of these people agree with this statement. If the answer is no, then the answer choice is not the point of disagreement. However, if the answer is yes, then you need to make sure that the other person would actually disagree with the statement. If the answer is yes again, you've found the point of disagreement.

(A) misses the point. Neither of them would disagree that children can learn valuable skills from individual activities.
(B) is the point of disagreement. Pat would agree, while Dana would disagree.
(C) is not the point of disagreement, because while Dana would agree, Pat would not necessarily disagree.
(D) is not the point of disagreement, because neither Pat nor Dana addresses this point.
(E) is not the point of disagreement, because while Dana would agree with this point, Pat would not necessarily disagree with it.

Clear things up? Let me know if you need more help with this one...

[theaether]

I had a problem with B and E as well. The modifiers really killed me here.

Would Dana disagree with E? I thought so because... She would not agree that it's "sometimes" desirable. In fact, she would counter it by saying it should always be the case. Like if I argue that People should always donate a % of their paychecks to charity and you say "It's sometimes good for people to donate a % to charity," I would just reiterate my argument instead of agreeing with you.

On the other hand, would Pat necessarily agree with B, that "all" children should learn to adapt? I just thought "all" was a strong inference out of the fact that Pat thinks it is a desirable quality. For example: A says an employee's style of working should dictate the managerial methods used. B says No, not always. The flexibility to work under any kind of manager is highly sought after. Can I now infer that B thinks that ALL employees should learn to adapt? Being rich is highly sought after as well, but should ALL people learn to be rich?

hopefully not digging myself too deeply into a trench of wrongdom

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

hopefully not digging myself too deeply into a trench of wrongdom

I think you're getting caught up in the task set out by the question stem. Remember the question doesn't say that the arguments "commit their proponents to disagreeing about something," it says that the "conversation lends the most support that they disagree about something." So we probably should avoid a level of exactitude that might be appropriate for an Inference question or a Necessary Assumption question.

That said, Pat does say that flexibility is an invaluable skill and doesn't say that it's invaluable for only some people but not for others - she simply says that it's invaluable.

Clearly, Dana would disagree with answer choice (B) and Dana would agree with answer choice (E). So the question is whether we can say that Pat agrees with answer choice (B) or disagrees with answer choice (E). We can't say that Pat thinks that it is never desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best. She said that it was sometimes desirable to do so. So she's not disagreeing with (E) - so answer choice (E) can't be the point of disagreement.

So does Pat agree with answer choice (B)? That's an easier sell and the question stem doesn't require us to hold that Pat has already committed 100% to the notion that all children should learn to adapt to various education methods - though she does say that it would be invaluable! How much more support do we need?

Does that answer your question here about why it doesn't feel we can say whether Pat has 100% committed to the point made in answer choice (B)?

[zainrizvi]

I'm getting confused as well here. Wouldn't Dana disagree with (E) and say no, it should ALWAYS be desirable. Or is that a small issue since in the greater scheme she clearly does agree with that viewpoint?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'm getting confused as well here. Wouldn't Dana disagree with (E) and say no, it should ALWAYS be desirable. Or is that a small issue since in the greater scheme she clearly does agree with that viewpoint?

It sounds like you've answered your own question, while you were writing that out. Your reasoning is accurate though. If Dana thinks that tailoring the child's education is always a good idea, then of course she would think that it's a good idea sometimes as well.

Sometimes is contained within the word always. Just like if you were to say that all politicians are corrupt, then you'd still believe that some politicians are corrupt - which btw, does NOT imply that some politicians are not corrupt.

Once Dana commits to the idea always being good, then she commits to it sometimes being good as well.

Make sense?

[shaynfernandez]

The most difficult part of this passage for me was trying to figure out the conclusions of Dana and Pat:

I could see Dana's conclusion being one of two things:
1. It is wrong to think that the same methods of education should be used with all children
2. A children's accustomed style of learning should always dictate the method being used.

The premise about many kids having been raised in communal environments learn better in different settings, seems to support 2. But I couldn't figure out if that just made 2. the sub-conclusion.

Also Pat's conclusion rests fully on Dana's conclusion:

This is shown by Pat saying "No, not always."

No what? Not always what?

Its not always wrong to think the same methods of education should be used with all children? Or a child's accustomed style of learning should not always dictate what method is used?

Because the conclusion was blurry for me the only way to beat the question was to just cling tight to the scope of the answer choices.

A. We know for sure Dana wouldn't agree with this but we are unsure of Pat we could infer that pat would agree that "some" children could
B. Seems far from perfect especially with the blurr of the conclusion, but it does cling to one of the conclusion differences mentioned.
C. Many children was an instant elimination for me, many is way to weak and way to unstable. this argument is prescriptive, what we should do because of all. We don't have the appropriate information to decipher the proportion of children to this upon.
D. "The main purpose" instantly in the gutter. Often the LSAT is confusing because things are implied such as assumptions, but something being "primary, main purpose, most important" has to be explicit, unless we are given a limited sample and we role out the rank of every other purpose.
E. Stayed real close to one of the blurred conclusions for me, except as soon as I saw sometimes I know it was very unlikely to to be the disagreement. Which makes sense, I mean even without looking at the argument how often are disagreements based on "sometimes"? Very rarely do we have arguments based on the difference between 0% and 0.1% percent.

The answer choices make this question very do able, but I had a hard time with the prescription of Dana and the counter conclusion of Pat.

The "therefore test" didn't really seem to do it for me.

It is wrong to think that the same methods of education should be used with all children. THEREFORE, A children's accustomed style of learning should always dictate the method being used.

A children's accustomed style of learning should always dictate the method being used. THEREFORE, It is wrong to think that the same methods of education should be used with all children.

Any help would be very appreciated.

[JensMJimenez89]

So, I understood what they were saying, but I just didn't understand the most brain-nard part of it, who was disagreeing with who. I always forget. How do you do that again?

[dukeag]

So, logically speaking, "not always" can equal "never" on the LSAT? Because if so I can see why B makes sense for Pat.

[maryadkins]

Yep! Not always can mean never, just like sometimes can mean all the time. Welcome to LSAT-land.

[michaelwcarper]

hopefully not digging myself too deeply into a trench of wrongdom

I think you're getting caught up in the task set out by the question stem. Remember the question doesn't say that the arguments "commit their proponents to disagreeing about something," it says that the "conversation lends the most support that they disagree about something." So we probably should avoid a level of exactitude that might be appropriate for an Inference question or a Necessary Assumption question.

That said, Pat does say that flexibility is an invaluable skill and doesn't say that it's invaluable for only some people but not for others - she simply says that it's invaluable.

Clearly, Dana would disagree with answer choice (B) and Dana would agree with answer choice (E). So the question is whether we can say that Pat agrees with answer choice (B) or disagrees with answer choice (E). We can't say that Pat thinks that it is never desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best. She said that it was sometimes desirable to do so. So she's not disagreeing with (E) - so answer choice (E) can't be the point of disagreement.

So does Pat agree with answer choice (B)? That's an easier sell and the question stem doesn't require us to hold that Pat has already committed 100% to the notion that all children should learn to adapt to various education methods - though she does say that it would be invaluable! How much more support do we need?

Does that answer your question here about why it doesn't feel we can say whether Pat has 100% committed to the point made in answer choice (B)?

So E is wrong because Pat might not disagree with it. But if Pat holds that it is SOMETIMES desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best, how can she ALSO hold that ALL children should learn to adapt various educational methods? Aren't these two somewhat mutually exclusive?

Or can you perhaps can you use different educational methods while still "tailoring" them to the child?

[maryadkins]

So E is wrong because Pat might not disagree with it. But if Pat holds that it is SOMETIMES desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best, how can she ALSO hold that ALL children should learn to adapt various educational methods? Aren't these two somewhat mutually exclusive?

Or can you perhaps can you use different educational methods while still "tailoring" them to the child?

Yes, I don't think we can assume that they are mutually exclusive. They could certainly overlap. Think about it...Pat could easily believe what she says AND believe what (E) says.

[asafezrati]

I can see how Pat agrees with B. I'm not sure about Dana's position.
She says that for every kid only the method that he is used to should be used, but the answer choice speaks about kids learning the ABILITY to adapt. Does learning to adapt to a method necessarily means that the kid is using that method as an learning style?

[tommywallach]

In this context, I would say so.

-t

[chenxil770]

I am not sure whether I get a reasonable way to eliminate E

For me, E is out because a educational methods can be tailored through a way GENERALLY for the child's learning best, then the tailored way could still be adapted by all children.

It is clearly not the issue the Dana and Pat disagree with, so E is out.

[YiZ98]

Yep! Not always can mean never, just like sometimes can mean all the time. Welcome to LSAT-land.

But if we take not always=never in this question, doesn't that make E also correct? If Pat's reply is "No, it is NEVER the case that a children's accustomed style of learning should dictate what method being used", she would certainly disagree with E, which states that "it is SOMETIMES desirable to tailor educational methods to the way that a child learns best."

However, if we take Pat's reply strictly as "it is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE that a children's accustomed style of leaning should dictate what method being used," he must accept that there are some cases in which a children's accustomed style of leaning SHOULD dictate what method being used (while there are also other cases in which a children's accustomed style of leaning SHOULD NOT dictate what method being used). Then wouldn't it be too extreme to claim (B), that ALL children should learn to adapt to various educational methods?

In other words, if Pat claims that

P1: It is not always the case that a person should go to college after graduating from high school

He must commit to both

P2: In some cases, a person should go to college after graduating from high school
P3: In other cases, a person should not go to college after graduating from high school

Then how can he also claims that

C: All people should get a job at pizza hut after graduating from high school (assume that working at pizza hut and attending college are mutually exclusive)

Either way, both interpretations of "not always" seems to me to contradict with formal logic.

The only way that I can think of to get out of this is to claim that Pat indeed uses not always as never, and draw a subtle distinction between what someone should do and what is desirable for someone -- what one should do is based upon a calculation of all desirabilities. She can agree with E, that it is sometimes desirable to tailor educational methods to the way that a child learns best, yet argue that, this desirability is, in general, outweighed by the desirability of adapting to different educational methods. In this way, he can agree with both B and E, making B the correct answer.

I just hope that the question stem can be more straightforward and use less ambiguous terms like "No, not always."

[FengA500]

Here is a way I think might be helpful to know which one to pick between B & E.

We know that in the this type analyzing argument question we need to find what they disagree. Actually, the question stem asks 'the conversation lends the most support'. So this can be a question of comparison. Now compare B and E:

For (B),

Dana definitely disagrees with it, as she thinks an educating method should be tailored according to a child's accustomed style of learning. If a child is raised in a more communal environment, educational method through group is more suitable for this child. So not all children should learn to adapt to different methods.
How about Pat's position? I think a mild position is to say that she can agree with it. After all, the ability to work in one's own AND in a group are BOTH invaluable, so that all children should learn to adapt to various methods, at least the methods of working in group AND working individually.
Now we have the disagreement. And there is no proof to say that Pat disagrees with (B). At best you can say 'Pat's position is not so strong', but it does not mean she definitely disagrees with it.

For (E),

Dana would definitely agrees with it, as she says that a child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate what method is used.
But how about Pat? I think the point here is that it is also possible that Pat can agree with (E)! Remember that her position is that the claim that 'child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate what method is used' is not always true. Her support is that both the ability to work in a group and individually are invaluable. Thus her imply is that at least for those two methods, all children should learn them, so Dana's position ('always') is not true. But this does not mean that she cannot agree with (E). This does not contradict with what she believes. Pat may say: true, it is sometimes desirable to tailor methods to the way a child learns best, but at least all children should learn how to work in group and work individually as the the flexibility of being able to work in both contexts are invaluable. This sounds natural.
So a disagreement CAN BE absent here. Eliminate it.

If you are still not sure about Pat's position for (B), consider this: Can we say that Pat will also disagree with (B) according to her argument? We have no clue from the question! Compared with (E), where it is more likely that both parties can agree with it, it is more difficult to say that both parties will disagree with (B). Because Pat's argument does not include clues of objection to (B). You may say that she only talks about a specific case and does not mention 'all children' in all cases, but think again about answer (E), I think it's better to suggest that 'Pat agrees with (E)' is more likely than 'Pat disagrees with (B)'.

P.S. I think this question raises an interesting issue about 'agree' and 'disagree'. When X holds a position A, as long as A does not contradict with other positions B, C, D directly, it is safe for us to say that X does not object B, C, D so that X is likely to hold other positions. Or at least those options are open.
However, it is difficult to say that X DOES NOT AGREE with B, C, D, unless we find clear words that manifest the contradiction. This is the case here: Pat holds the position that tailored method is not always desirable. Does it contradict with (E)? Definitely not! So she is likely to hold (E), right? When I say it is not always desirable to drink Sprite, I can agree that it is sometimes desirable to drink it. But you have no idea whether I object to the position 'we should not drink Sprite'. By contrast, for (B), we want to find Pat's agreement, and this is easier. Since her position does not contradict with (B) directly, it is safe to say that she is likely to hold (B), and we have our answer.