Q4 - Parent P: Children will need

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I like this one.

The question asks us to find a response parent P could make in response to parent Q. Parent P is advocating that we should introduce all sorts of technology into the classroom, especially at an early age. Parent Q is saying that introducing all that technology is pointless, because by the time the kids grow up, the technology will have changed and the stuff they learned would be outdated. Since we're seeking to support parent P we need to find a reason why introducing technology at early age would be a benefit.

(A) sounds like a reason you would want to teach technology in the class room, hold for now.
(B) says that we will be able to adapt to new technology, but not why it would be a benefit.
(C) sounds like a reason why you would want technology in the classroom at an early age - it increases your ability to adapt to technology in the future. Hold for now.
(D) undermines parent Q, rather than supporting parent Q.
(E) advances parent P's argument, but not as a response to parent Q.

Let's look back at answer choices (A) and (C). Answer choice (A) talks about how to maintain proficiency but not about why learning technology at an early age on stuff that will be eventually outdated could still be an advantage. Answer choice (C), however, gives us a reason why learning technology that will eventually be outdated will still be useful.

[kimjy89]

So if D does counter Q's argument why can't it be the answer? Sorry I am asking so many questions..

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So, while the underlying principle in answer choice (D) runs counter to parent Q's attack on parent P, it fails to be as relevant to the discussion as answer choice (C) is.

Parent P argues for introducing technology into classrooms of children at an early age. Parent Q argues that this would be pointless because technology changes so quickly that the technology would be outdated by the time these children are adults.

We need an answer choice that implies that introducing such technology is not pointless. Answer choice (C) states that increased contact with technology will increase the ability of children to interact with technology in the future. Clearly, a reason to introduce technology into the classroom.

Answer choice (D) states that for automobiles, advancements in technology do not mean that the drivers need to relearn how to drive cars. But answer choice (D) not does discuss technology in classrooms, and does not offer a benefit of introducing technology to people at an early age - two significant drawback to answer to choice (D).

I'm glad you're really thinking about this one. Let me know if you still don't see it, and I can always have another instructor give this one a crack! Sometimes a fresh perspective makes all the difference...

[peg_city]

Can you please go into more detail as to why B is wrong? It was between B and C for me and I chose the wrong one.

Wouldn't the fact that the students are capable of adapting to technology in itself be a benefit. If students can adapt to new technology then Parent Q's argument is no longer adequate.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Happy to flush out answer choice (B) a bit more, and I think I could have been a bit more clear in my earlier post. We're looking for an answer choice that represents a possible counter that parent P could make to parent Q. That means that we need to support P's original statement and undermine Q's response.

I should have said in my earlier post that answer choice (B) provides no benefit of introducing technology and computers to children at a young age. Notice that answer choice (C) provides a benefit of the proposal put forward by parent P and would challenge parent Q's response that such measures would be pointless.

So it's not that we're looking for any benefit from the answer choice, but rather that the answer choice would provide a benefit of undertaking parent P's proposal.

Does that answer your question?

[geverett]

This question definitely caused me a moment of pause as B, C, and E all seemed attractive in their own ways. For my own benefit I will write out an explanation on this one.

Matt has a killer point that the best way we can have a strong counter to Q's argument would be to bolster P's argument and undermine Q's argument. Here's a dissection of the arguments:

P: Computer skills are necessary for our children to have success in tomorrow's world. Therefore, we should introduce computers into the classroom in kindergarten and computer languages should be a requirement in high school.

Q: What you're advocating is pointless, because technology advances so rapidly that any computer skills children learn will be outdated by the time they are adults.

Alright, so here is what i was thinking when I did this question. P has made a case for introducing computers and computer languages to children and high school students and Q has rejected this on the grounds that those skills will be outdated by the time they could serve any practical purpose - adulthood. My initial thought was "What if by introducing computers at a young age that you give students a crucial advantage that they would not otherwise have." Q is basically assuming that the pace at which technology advances precludes any benefit obtained from being sufficient to justify introducing computers in kindergarten and computer languages in high school.

Of course we know that one way to weaken an argument is to bring to light Q's assumption and show whatever he/she is assuming to not be the case. So we go the questions with this in mind: "There must be a benefit of introducing computers at a young age that in spite of technologies rate of advance would still justify the introduction of the computers."

(A) This is an argument for "regular training" when what we need is an argument for introducing computer skills at a young age in spite of rapidly advancing technology. Get rid of it.
(B) Just because people have been able to do something in the past does not mean we can assume they will continue to be able to do that same thing (adapt). Also we are not quite sure what people in the past have adapted to. It could be the case that whatever was adapted to in the past is different in a crucial respect to adapting to computer technology. This gives us a reason, though very weak, to refute Q's argument, but it does not do anything to bolster P's argument about introducing computers to children in kindergarten and computer languages to high school students.
(C) This is what we want. It bolsters P's argument by giving a reason for introducing computers to children (increases ability to interact with technology) that Q assumes to not be the case. At the same time it undermines Q's argument by stating that the introduction of computers to children will increase their ability to interact with technology which can be inferred to be an increase in their ability to adapt to changing technology.
(D) Argument by analogy. Always be a little suspicious of these. While hearing this kind of response given in a real life conversation might sound persuasive, when it comes to the LSAT we should be very suspicious of analogies. One way to raise suspicion of analogies is by asking if the things being compared are different in at least one crucial aspect which would make the analogy a weak one. In this case I definitely believe that to be the case simply because there is ambiguity as to what is required to adapt to computer technology. If one knows how to drive a manual or automatic transmission then that is sufficient to be able to drive a car whether that is a ferrari or a ford minivan. However, technological advancement in computers might require learning a whole new set of fundamental skill sets in order to adapt. We just don't know so we can mark this answer choice off, because there are too many assumptions we would need to make in order to absolutely prove or absolutely disprove this answer choice. Even if you did have those assumptions this answer choice can only potentially gives us a reason to refute Q's argument, and does not give us any reason to accept P's argument about introducing computers to children.
(E) Who cares? This does nothing to attack Q's argument which is the fact that technologies rapid advancement precludes any benefit from being sufficient to justify the introduction of computers to children. If P was to lodge this argument at Q then Q would just as easily be able to say "whether they have more time now or later is inconsequential to the fact that technologies rapid advancement makes introducing computer to children a fools errand, because the skills they learn will be obsolete by the time they could put them to practical use."

[LSAT-Chang]

Can someone tell me what type of question this is?? I wasn't sure if it was a weaken or strengthen (since we are trying to weaken Parent Qs -- but at the same time it could be a strengthen too if we are strengthen Parent Ps..) or some other question type. Please name it if you can!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey So! It's definitely a weaken. The question stem says that we are to provide a counter to Q's objection. So that tells us to focus on what Q's objection was, and challenge that. Good question!

[canylaw]

I like this one.

The question asks us to find a response parent P could make in response to parent Q. Parent P is advocating that we should introduce all sorts of technology into the classroom, especially at an early age. Parent Q is saying that introducing all that technology is pointless, because by the time the kids grow up, the technology will have changed and the stuff they learned would be outdated. Since we're seeking to support parent P we need to find a reason why introducing technology at early age would be a benefit.

(A) sounds like a reason you would want to teach technology in the class room, hold for now.
(B) says that we will be able to adapt to new technology, but not why it would be a benefit.
(C) sounds like a reason why you would want technology in the classroom at an early age - it increases your ability to adapt to technology in the future. Hold for now.
(D) undermines parent Q, rather than supporting parent Q.
(E) advances parent P's argument, but not as a response to parent Q.

Let's look back at answer choices (A) and (C). Answer choice (A) talks about how to maintain proficiency but not about why learning technology at an early age on stuff that will be eventually outdated could still be an advantage. Answer choice (C), however, gives us a reason why learning technology that will eventually be outdated will still be useful.

I thought AC-d:undermined Parent Q's argument but did not support P's argument.

Also,I thought b was also wrong for the reason that 'no reason' to believe that something would have changed from past to present.

This question is definitely a good one to learn about weakening question type.

Thanks for helping.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Also,I thought b was also wrong for the reason that 'no reason' to believe that something would have changed from past to present.

Actually answer choice (B) provides the reason why we could assume that if something was true in the past that it would be true now. At far as adapting to technology, apparently, nothing has changed. We should simply take the answer choices at face value.

As for the incorrect answers go, there are two sides of the argument and answer choice (C) is the only one that would support parent P's suggestion to introduce computer language training in kindergarten. Parent Q says that there would be no point. Since the two positions are so black/white set in opposition. Anything we do to undermine parent Q will support parent P.

Does that answer your question?

[kimhyungjoon]

For me, I was left to choose between answer choices A and C, but I was still not convinced by C due to the wording of Parent Q. Q saying "technology advances so rapidly..." made me understand this statement as computer technology as a whole might become obsolete, to be replaced by some technology totally unrelated to computers. Thus I ended up choosing A, which, despite its own problems, refers to technology in general, unlike C, which limits itself to computer technology.

Have I been too imaginative in understanding the stimulus?

[zee.brad]

For me, I was left to choose between answer choices A and C, but I was still not convinced by C due to the wording of Parent Q. Q saying "technology advances so rapidly..." made me understand this statement as computer technology as a whole might become obsolete, to be replaced by some technology totally unrelated to computers. Thus I ended up choosing A, which, despite its own problems, refers to technology in general, unlike C, which limits itself to computer technology.

Have I been too imaginative in understanding the stimulus?

Well, in that case, another reason we should eliminate A is that "regular training", it has nothing to do with "early-age training" that P suggested.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice point zee.brad!

Another issue with answer choice (A) is that we're looking for an answer choice that would serve to counter Parent Q. What did Parent Q say that we need to counter? That it would be pointless to introduce computers in kindergarden. So, we're really looking for answer that would suggest that introducing computers in kindergarden would not be pointless. Answer choice (A) does not address the issue of introducing computers in kindergarden, whereas answer choice (C) does.

Nice discussion!

[gplaya123]

I would like someone to verify my reasoning...

Parent P says that introducing computer education would be beneficial starting from kindergarten.

Parent Q says it's pointless because by the time they grow up, the stuff they learn would be obsolete.

Now, I believe it's crucial to find out the "assumption."

I believe parent's Q assumption (an unwarranted one) is that if obsolete -> there is no benefits (or pointless).

I think that's the core that needs to be recognized.

A) Who cares about regular training? Parent Q never even discussed it and even if it is necessary, it does not weaken the argument in any way.

B) This says that because people in the back then did it, people today could do it. This is temporal fallacy. You don't want to choose answer that commits another flaw...

C) This is money. It shows that learning computer language does produce some benefit: AKA increasing ability to interact with computer

D) A mentioned above, this undermines Parent Q's argument.

E) If anything else, this supports Parent Q's argument. If they have less time and by the time they graduate the computer language seems obsolete, why bother learning it?

[csunnerberg13]

I'm still stuck between A and C and the reasons already presented aren't really convincing to me. So far, we've said A is incorrect because it doesn't address why introducing computers in kindergartenis a good idea despite the possibility of obsolesence. I think A provides a reason: if you don't, the kids won't be proficient enough to live in society. I think this is a pretty convincing reason. Is the issue here because it says "regular training"? Even so, I'm still not entirely convinced against it because in the stimulus, we aren't talking about JUST kindergarten: there's discussion of continuing the education in high school as well and both are considered by parent Q to be pointless. So A refers to the idea that training is necessary in both early school years and later ones, otherwise students won't be prepared. Im not sure what im missing here but A seems just as convincing of an answer as C.

[deedubbew]

If computer becomes obsolete by the time these children are adults, then any work with computers in kindergarden or computer languages in high school that increases their ability to interact with computer technology would be useless. The answer choice C is making the assumption that computer technology will not become obsolete, making it a weak answer choice. I don't like that the only reason I chose C is because all the other answer choices don't even remotely address the possibility that computer skills would be relevant later in life. What say you?

[WaltGrace1983]

I would like someone to verify my reasoning...

Parent P says that introducing computer education would be beneficial starting from kindergarten.

Parent Q says it's pointless because by the time they grow up, the stuff they learn would be obsolete.

Now, I believe it's crucial to find out the "assumption."

I believe parent's Q assumption (an unwarranted one) is that if obsolete -> there is no benefits (or pointless).

I think that's the core that needs to be recognized.

A) Who cares about regular training? Parent Q never even discussed it and even if it is necessary, it does not weaken the argument in any way.

Yea because "regular training" doesn't have much to do with the type of training P is referring to. What is P referring to? Finite training: training that goes from kindergarten to high school with no discussion of any kind of training after that. Thus in a way, this might actually strengthen Q's argument. Why? Because "regular training" would require a lot more than just training through high school. If one just stops in high school then, yea, I can see why the training would be pointless. However the bigger issue is that this doesn't address the "obsolete" idea that Q references. As you mentioned, we could (should) show why learning something that will eventually become obsolete is actually okay!

B) This says that because people in the back then did it, people today could do it. This is temporal fallacy. You don't want to choose answer that commits another flaw...

Yes but keep in mind that this still gives us the idea that "there is no reason to believe...equally capable." This answer choice is fairly weak. "No reason to believe" is fairly weak too. I think the more telling sign that this answer isn't so good is how general it is. It is talking about "technology" in general and we are more looking for something about "computer technology," much more specific. The idea of "throughout history" is also very general. I wouldn't necessarily TOSS this one - but I am definitely going to look for a better answer. If I find it, only then will I toss this one.

C) This is money. It shows that learning computer language does produce some benefit: AKA increasing ability to interact with computer

Yea! It attacks the idea of being "obsolete" and why learning something that will eventually be obsolete isn't a bad thing!

D) A mentioned above, this undermines Parent Q's argument.

Sure it undermines it but, like (B), I am weary of how general it is. Remember, we WANT to undermine Q's argument. It's how much does this answer choice do so is the question we want to answer!

E) If anything else, this supports Parent Q's argument. If they have less time and by the time they graduate the computer language seems obsolete, why bother learning it?

My thoughts exactly.

[WaltGrace1983]

I'm still stuck between A and C and the reasons already presented aren't really convincing to me.

So far, we've said A is incorrect because it doesn't address why introducing computers in kindergartenis a good idea despite the possibility of obsolesence (that's the key).

I think A provides a reason: if you don't, the kids won't be proficient enough to live in society. I think this is a pretty convincing reason.

Where did you get this idea? I think what you are saying is this: Answer choice (A) says ~(regular training) → ~(adequate proficiency to live in society). This would weaken IF (regular training) is the same as what P is talking about. Is it? THAT is the question and I think the answer is "no." "Regular training" is distinctly different from "introducing computers in kindergarten and having computer language classes in high school." How is that regular? I mean it may be. Maybe they will teach it from kindergarten all throughout high school. However, what about after that?

All we know is that the computers will be introduced in kindergarten and worked with in high school too. You could introduce something and then not see it again for another 10 years! The point is that "regular training" is not exactly the same as what is being discussed by P/Q.

Is the issue here because it says "regular training"? Even so, I'm still not entirely convinced against it because in the stimulus, we aren't talking about JUST kindergarten: there's discussion of continuing the education in high school as well and both are considered by parent Q to be pointless...Im not sure what im missing here but A seems just as convincing of an answer as C.

Yes, continuing education in high school. This doesn't mean it will go straight through from kindergarten to high school. However, even if you were to assume this (and I think you may be able to get away with it), this still says nothing. Why? Because what happens after high school?!

We are talking solely about kindergarten through high school. We know nothing about what happens after. All this is saying is that you should regularly train in order to be proficient in society. Yet how does that apply here? Maybe they will regularly train through high school BUT this still wouldn't address the idea that all the skills they learned are going to become obsolete according to Q! THAT is what we want to address.

This is why (C) is a much better answer. It says, "yes, I see that it will become obsolete. Okay. Whatever. Yet EVEN IF it DOES become obsolete, working with computers has a benefit! It is NOT pointless!"

[WaltGrace1983]

The answer choice C is making the assumption that computer technology will not become obsolete, making it a weak answer choice.

This is not right. We have absolutely no basis for that. It says nothing about whether or not technology will or will not become obsolete (I think it implies that it probably will but that doesn't matter).

(C) basically says that learning to work with computers would have a benefit! This would apply if the computers did or did not become obsolete. P says "benefit!" and Q says "no benefit!" while (C) says, "definitely a benefit!" Do you see that? The conclusion of Q's argument is that "That [computers introduced in kindergarten and computer languages required in high school] would be pointless!" (C) then says, "no it wouldn't! It would definitely be beneficial! It would INCREASE their ability to interact with computer technology as a whole!"

If computer becomes obsolete by the time these children are adults, then any work with computers in kindergarden or computer languages in high school that increases their ability to interact with computer technology would be useless.

Look at this term shift. You go (as the argument does) from the actual technology becoming obsolete to the work with that technology becoming obsolete/pointless. You are making the very same (flawed) assumption that Q makes.

My mom used to code with computers. She would use cards to program a computer with commands written on them. Computers in the 1970s, when she learned how to use them, were the size of whole rooms. That technology is definitely obsolete now.

I am typing on a Macbook Pro that inputs hundreds and hundreds of lines of code as I flick individual keystrokes.

I cannot code on my Macbook for crap (and no, its not because its a Mac ). My mom could probably out-code me any day BECAUSE she learned how to code on a now-obsolete machine. If we were to think about this in non-LSAT terms, we might even say that Q's argument speaks the exact OPPOSITE principle we would espouse. Wouldn't learning how to use an older computer that was completely manual make you more adept at using computers now that are much more automatic?

[AyakiK696]

The posters above have been immensely helpful, but I'm still a little puzzled by this question. I initially didn't recognize that it was a Weaken Q, which also added to the confusion.

I just can't really see why B and D can be disqualified. I can see how the impact that B has on the argument is quite vague, but I thought that all Strengthen/Weaken Q's had four wrong answer choices, and I can't seem to totally justify eliminating B. Also -- for Strengthen/Weaken Q's, aren't we allowed to have comparative answer choices to bolster/undermine the argument? Or is that only in instances where there's a correlation in the stimulus?

Really confused with this question in general. Would really appreciate any clarification!