One quick bit of feedback, though ... this isn't an argument, so you don't need to think in terms of Premises and a Conclusion.
Whenever the question stem is asking about information/statements/passage, we're just reading a bunch of facts. There's isn't one idea we're supposed to elevate over the others (as we would a conclusion).
For Joymarie, this question and its answer choices are all about testing conditional logic, so it's super important you know how to deal with all the trigger words.
1st sentence:
The trigger word is "if". "If" always comes right before a sufficient condition, so we symbolize the first sentence
Competitive --> overcome crisis.
(note, "only if" is not the same as "if". "only if" always comes right before a necessary condition)
2nd sentence:
The trigger word is "requires". "Requires" always comes right before a necessary condition, so we symbolize the 2nd sentence as
Overcome crisis --> successful teaching methods
3rd sentence:
The trigger word is "No", as in "No A's are B's". This one is trickier. The "No" should be attached to the 2nd idea.
No A's are B's = All A's are ~B's
No NFL players are female = All NFL players are ~female.
Here, the 2nd idea in the sentence is already negative, "does NOT get students to spend signif out of class time", so when we negate it, it turns positive.
Succ. teaching method --> DOES involve signif. out of class time
Finally,
(A) uses "if" again, and this is set up in order already.
(B) uses "unless", which is the other tricky trigger word.
You can remember how to deal with "Unless" by just thinking "Un-Left", meaning you just have to negate the first half of the sentence.
(Crisis can NOT be overcome) unless (signif. time out of class)
becomes
Crisis CAN be overcome --> Signif. time out of class.
==== other answers ==
(C) "as important" is a baseless comparison ... learn to be afraid of comparative wording in Inference, Necessary Assumption, and Reading Comp. It's an easy way to make a trap answer out of some concept we talked about.
(D) "only if" indicates a necessary condition, so this looks like
Signif time outside of class --> Remain Competitive
(this, again, is reversed logic. we could infer the other direction)
(E) This one is pretty tricky to me. We have a series of required conditions here.
Remaining competitive in the global economy
requires
overcoming the crisis in math education
which requires
employing successful teaching methods
which requires
getting students to spend a lot of time on math outside of class.
(E) seems somewhat tempting to me because I know that if we DON'T get students to spend a lot of time outside class then we WON'T remain competitive.
But from that, can I say that if we DO get students to spend a lot of time outside class it will HELP us to remain competitive?
Not really.
See if this feels better:
Being President of the US
requires
that you are at least 35 years old.
From that, can you infer that being at least 35 years old HELPS you to become President of the US?
I can definitely see someone trying to argue the semantics that by meeting one prerequisite, you are "HELPED" in the journey to any goal (in that you are not totally disqualified from reaching the goal). But we can hopefully agree that (E) is making a bit of a stretch, whereas (B) is just cold, mathematical logic.
Hope this helps.
#officialexplanation
