Q6 - Mathematics teacher: Teaching students

[noah]

The conclusion of this principle question is that if we're to teach pre-calc, we must make sure the students are able to handle the abstraction involved - or, to dumb it down - we must make sure they're geeky enough.

Why? Because if students are taught calc before they're geeky enough, they may abandon studying math altogether.

(Sound familiar? It's probably what happened to most of US! )

The gap here is the assumption that if something leads to some folks abandoning it, we shouldn't do it. Or, as (A) words it, we should introduce math only to those who can be smart enough and keep up their motivation. Why not expose the less geeky kids to calc and let them drop out?

(B) is out of scope - we're not comparing various courses, and who says calc is university level?

(C) is tempting, but we already know that calc. can undermine the motivation of some people - it doesn't help the argument to know that this is a general issue with cognitive tasks. This is a premise-booster. It doesn't help us conclude what we should do know that we know some kids might be adversely affected. Plus, we don't care if its because of the effort or because of some other reason, such as a chemically-derived neural meltdown from exposure to an idea that is too complex.

(D) is out of scope - application? And, again, is calc university level?

(E) weakens the argument - we do want to consider the level of abstraction and its effect on students!

As to the question above about whether an answer is wrong if it introduces new terms: no. Particularly strengthen, weaken and necessary assumption questions may do this. But, it's good to be on the lookout for this sort of thing!


#officialexplanation

[LSAT-Chang]

Helloooo
can anyone help me understand why (C) is wrong? I correctly chose (A) but was REALLY tempted by (C).. one general question I had with principle support questions (such as this one) was: are answer choices that introduce new terms wrong? Like with this one, is (C) wrong because of the words "exceptional effort" and "undermine the motivation"?? But then again, (A) has "motivation" as well.. I couldn't figure out why (C) was incorrect.. any help would be greatly appreciated!!

[Antnat]

I am still uncertain as to why (A) is the correct answer.

First, to make sure, are the premise and conclusion in this argument core both conditionals?
I have dissected this stimulus as the following:
P: students are taught calculus before they are ready --> abandon study of calculus
C: teach calculus --> make sure students can handle level of abstraction

I don't understand how I can get from here to the assumption mentioned by Noah (we should introduce math only to those who can be smart enough and keep up their motivation. Why not expose the less geeky kids to calc and let them drop out?)

In other words, I am not sure where I can get the assumption that we should let some students drop out and only concentrate on those who don't lose motivation.

Thanks!!

[bluebeans]

So, lemme give this a shot.

The conclusion: If we're gonna teach kids calculus, we gotta make sure they can handle it.

The premise? If kids can't handle it, they may leave math altogether.

In the LSAT, we're never supposed to try thinking about flaws within the premise. That remains the case even when it's tempting (like in this case, where the premise has a conditional). Don't try to dissect the premise and find gaps within the premise.

When the math teacher concludes "we must make sure they can handle" the math, it begs the question, Why should we care if kids leave math altogether?! Like, honestly, who cares if they can't handle and then go on to abandon math (as the premise promises that's likely to happen)?!

If (A) is true, the math teacher's concern for kids' math futures make sense.

[sh854]

Hi all, can someone help me understand why A is correct? I do not get what losing motivation has to do with anything. I thought it was only about dealing with level of abstraction.

[ohthatpatrick]

‘Losing motivation’ is meant as a match for ‘abandoning the study of mathematics altogether’. It’s far from a perfect match, but it’s the closest we’re going to get in this set of answer choices.

The author is arguing that we should only teach a high school student calculus if we’re sure that student can handle the level of abstraction involved.

Why do we need to be sure of that? What would happen if they couldn’t handle the abstraction?

The premise says that if they can’t handle the abstraction, they may abandon studying math altogether.

Obviously, the author (a mathematics teacher) does not want that to happen. But we need to spell out that connection.

Principle: “Don’t teach someone calculus if it might lead them to abandon math altogether”.

We could pre-phrase this principle, but we have to be ready (ironically) to handle the level of abstraction we’ll get in the answers.

More abstract version of our principle: “Don’t teach someone a specific type of X if it might lead them to avoid any type of X in the future.”

Does “abandoning the study of something” mean the same thing as “losing motivation for that something”?

Eh, not precisely, but they’re pretty interchangeable in this context. The author is just saying that it’s dangerous to scare high school students with calculus before they’re ready for it, with the risk being that we may alienate those students from math altogether.

(A) is just expressing that by saying “only the high school kids who are READY for the cognitive challenges of calculus (who will NOT be deterred by the abstraction) should be introduced to it”.

Since the author's primary concern is that students will drop out of the world of math, we need to find SOME answer choice that locks in with his primary concern.

"Losing motivation" is the closest we get to "dropping out of math".

[bswise2]

I need help eliminating answer choice E.

Regarding AC A
At first, I second guessed this answer choice because I did not interpret the stimulus to say that the students need to "meet the cognitive challenges," only that they need to be able to handle calculus to a point where they don't lose motivation in mathematics. I thought it was possible for a student to take calculus, not do so well (and not meet the cognitive challenges), but still be able to "handle the level of abstraction" in the sense that they did not lose interest in math as a result of the level of abstraction. I interpreted "handle level of abstraction" to mean "not being psychologically deterred from math." I didn't take it to mean that they had to achieve a certain level of performance.

Regarding AC E
I am really struggling with this answer choice. The premise says "before they are ready for the level of abstraction" and the conclusion says that we must "make sure they can handle the level of abstraction." In this entire argument, the actual level of abstraction is unchallenged. The only thing we are challenging is the student's capability of handling it. The conclusion is claiming that, if we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we need to evaluate THEM and make sure THEY can handle it. I chose E because I don't see why the level of abstraction couldn't be what is considered before teaching them. Maybe the level of abstraction should be reduced for some students or maybe it should be reduced in general for all pre-university students. It could just be that the level of abstraction is just generally too high. Why couldn't the conclusion instead be "If we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we must reduce the level of abstraction to meet their "handling capacity." E eliminates this alternate conclusion.

[NichP73]

Quick response, remember that a principle question will most often have "SHOULD" in the answer. It is worded in the form of an opinion.

[smiller]

Quick response, remember that a principle question will most often have "SHOULD" in the answer. It is worded in the form of an opinion.

It's definitely important to notice the word "should" in answer choices, and whether there is a corresponding "should" in the argument. In this case, the "should " in answer choice (A) matches the "if we are going to... we must..." structure in the conclusion of the argument.

If you're suggesting that we can eliminate answer choice (E) because it contains the phrase "should not" instead of "should," I wouldn't say that's a reliable way to eliminate an answer. There are notable examples of correct answers to Principle Support questions that state something "should not" be done.

In this case, "should not" is a problem for answer choice (E) because, as Noah noted, when the meaning of the entire answer choice is considered, choice (E) weakens the argument. To be more specific, choice (E) contradicts the conclusion. Choice (E) doesn't address the actual gap in the argument, which is a gap between abandoning the study of mathematics and whether or not we should make sure that students can handle the level of abstraction.