Q17 - Educator: Some experimental educational

[shirando21]

why can't E be correct? it is a counterexample.

[O LSAT Why Art Thou A Pain]

I was locked in on the "better than average" part in the stimulus. This doesn't necessarily mean that all the students in the program are superstars; however it does mean that relative to most of their classmates, they have a better performance. Answer choice E says "some" - remember this could be mean 2-3 students. Maybe they are just exceptionally gifted.

What answer choice B does is place doubt on the parents teaching first and then these kids going to school and kicking butt. B says well mom and/or dad were teachers and so they know a thing or two about actual teaching. So it's the not the program but rather the experience of the most parents that propelling these kids forward. Leaves room open to say that maybe even without the program, kids with teacher parents would perform better than average.

[tommywallach]

Hey There Guys,

It's important to remember that weaken questions, such as this one, are still ASSUMPTION based. In other words, you aren't just looking for any old counter-example, you're looking for an answer that points out the PREEXISTING assumption/flaw in the argument as written. So your starting point should always be to locate the weak point in the argument by probing the core:

Conclusion: EEPs are successful
Premise: EEP kids perform better

At first glance, this looks like a solid argument. But it CANNOT be. Any weaken question prompt HAS to have an assumption. The only thing that could be getting in the way here is there's some OTHER reason these EEP kids are performing better OTHER than the program itself.

(A) Enjoyment is irrelevant.
(B) Aha! If the teachers who CHOOSE to do EEP are educators, that could explain the better performance. But that improvement WOULD NOT generalize outwards if people who were NOT educators tried to do this.
(C) Approval is irrelevant.
(D) Cost is irrelevant.
(E) This may look like a counter-example, but actually, it doesn't say much we didn't already know. We know that people performed better ON AVERAGE. Knowing that some people (and some could be one or two people) do well without the program does not actually hurt the argument in any fundamental way.

Weaken questions always throw something in like that. For example:

Town A is cool
so Town B is cool

You would weaken this argument by saying "The two towns aren't the same," not by saying "Some people in Town B are uncool." See why the first is a more fundamental weaken than the second? Once you get used to this pattern, you won't fall for it.

Hope that helps!

-t

[mornincounselor]

The conclusion is that these programs are succesful and they should be expanded.

If the conclusion is about whether a certain program should be expanded how can cost not be an issue. I was between B and D and I went with D because I thought the main conclusion was that the programs should be expanded -- i.e. they are worth the cost -- if the cost is not determined this would weaken.

Maybe the cost being generally (but not precisely) determined is enough, but I still found this question difficult.

[adisadeliovsky]

I have a question and would really love if someone could let me know

For (E) could we say that this answer choice is a part to whole flaw aswell?

Just because SOME (part) students did do well without the program, this would not show how the the program (as a whole) was not successful??

similarly with the example above Town A is cool so Town B is cool

some people (part) in two B are uncool. this does not show that the whole (town A or B) are uncool.