Q21 - Some educators claim that

[gregory.mortenson]

Some educators: cover basic subjects in depth so that students can explore on their own later.

Argument against this is made by saying that without understanding SIGNIFICANCE of a subject (ie, only study the basics) then self-study will be difficult.

Correct answer choice is D? Can you please help me make this connection?

Also, I was confused by this question because I wasn't sure if the "educators" referred to in the question means the initial premise (basic subjects lead to self study) or the conclusion reached (without knowing significance self-study is tough).

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So it seems that you've correctly understood the argument. The first sentence details a claim made by "some educators" and the second sentence provides the evidence according to "these educators" for why the first sentence is true. The author chimes in during the last sentence and says that "these educator" have failed to consider something, so the author brings up a rebuttal in the last sentence.

I think your confusion developed in the question stem when the LSAT asks "The educators' reasoning provides grounds for accepting..."

In this case, we are being told to ignore the author's point and focus in on what "these educators" were saying.

According to the second sentence, which is the perspective of "these educators," it's best to tackle a few examples very well and then let the students expand the breadth of the investigation on their own.

So we're looking for answer that reflects this view: Very Narrow Scope well understood leading to easier ability to understand a broad range of related material.

(A) says it's easier to understand how things work in one way after we learn how they function in a different way. There's no discussion in this answer choice about a thorough investigation in one area leading to an easier ability to understand related material. The key to why this answer choice is not correct is that there's nothing to relate to the words 'solid grasp' up in the argument.

(B) lively vs. dull lessons are not important, thorough and expanded investigations are.

(C) there is a discussion of learning from an instructor vs. learning independently, but the argument says that we can make the independent investigation easier with a narrowly focused and thorough in class lesson.

(D) while the topic of this answer choice feels obscure and unrelated, it does apply a principle that is enumerated in the argument. That a thorough yet narrowly defined lesson, can help with an understanding of related material in a broader sense. (OBSCURE BUT FITS THE PRINCIPLE ENUMERATED BY THE EDUCATORS')

(E) this answer is the exact opposite of what we are seeking in the correct answer. We want it to say that it's easier to learn a broad range of related material once we have understood thoroughly a narrow subset of that material.

I hope this helps....

[gregory.mortenson]

Nailed it! Thanks so much.

[roshan_aslam_engg]

wow, looks like ppl have been using this forum from 1969 !!! joining date dec 31, 1969!!!

summer of 69!!

[zainrizvi]

According to the second sentence, which is the perspective of "these educators," it's best to tackle a few examples very well and then let the students expand the breadth of the investigation on their own.

I don't quite understand how you got here from the second sentence, which seems to deal with more understanding basic concepts and introductory techniques.

[bigtree65]

I don't understand this question at all. First of all I think that the last sentence is still the educators and not the author, it makes no sense to me that that is the author's statement but I guess it doesn't affect the overall question anyway in the end.

More importantly I thought this argument was about how educators believe that students need to be taught simpler ideas in detail so that they can learn more complicated ideas on their own later on. Because of this I chose A since I thought plants and animals being useful was the simple idea and their classification was the more complicated one. I didn't really like the fit, but it still seems more reasonable to me than the only alternative D, which says that it's easier to understand any Greek tragedy (simple idea) after one has analyzed a few of them in detail (other simple ideas). Although I don't think A is a good answer, I think D lacks the complexity shift required for it to be a better answer than A.

[gplaya123]

I agree with Bigtree, that the last premise is actually asserted by educators.
However, the problem with A is that it says when a student learns a topic on classification, this will enable the student to find the relevant topic to the classification, which is the usefulness of the animals and plants, easier.
Nowhere in stimulus supports such claim; I think if A said "it is easier to understand how plants and animals are classified after learning the taxonomy of animals and plants," then it would have been right. I mean my example can be a stretch since the example is assuming that the taxonomy is the basic concept of the classification, but you get the idea. usefulness and classification are relevant subjects but not the same things; the stimulus says when you learn basic X concepts, you can learn more about X in depth.

But D nails it since it is totally supported by the second premise of the stimulus: solid basic concept (analyzing a few Greek Tragedies in detail) will enable to explore the breadth of that subject (understand "any" Greek Tragedy). Note the latter subject is identical to the former.

[ganbayou]

I was not sure between A and D and chose A because of the word "useful" in answer A. Since in the last sentence it says "significance" I thought this is the same as "useful" in A. But if the last sentence is not an opinion of educator, this is not correct and actually what A says can be just negation of the last sentence so it is incorrect anyway...right??
(the last sentence: no understand. significance, no further study...A. understand usefulness, understand classification)

[rinagoldfield]

Yeah… I disagree with Matt’s take above and agree with bigtree and gplaya. I think the whole stimulus is the educators’ argument. The educators basically say: “cover basic concepts in depth so that students learn how to study on their own.” We’re looking for an answer choice that reflects this point of view. (D) gives an example of this argument.

(A) is incorrect because “useful” and “significance” are not synonymous. The educator’s main point is to learn deeply, not that you need to know how something is used. I see why (A) is tempting, but it ultimately side-steps the educators’ main point.

[keonheecho]

Is this an inference or a parallel reasoning question? Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

It's worded like an Inference question (although the answer choices feel more like a Parallel the Principle question).

Inference questions have some variation of this form:
BASED ON THIS PARAGRAPH, which of these answer choices HAS THE MOST SUPPORT?

"The educators' reasoning" = based on this paragraph
"provides grounds for accepting which answer choice" = which answer choice has most support

[kathys7]

I still don't understand why A is wrong. What I understand is that the core of Q21, is about learning in depth or width. So when I looked through A, I thought the learning how plants and animals can be useful is about depth whereas learning about how they are classified si just about learning in width. Because I think classification , when compared to useful, is easier and just the factual information.