PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 25
We are in a new industrial revolution that(98 more words not shown)
The argument relies on which(5 more words not shown)
- AAcademics in business(9 more words not shown)
- BAcademics in business(11 more words not shown)
- CAcademics are not(9 more words not shown)
- DAcademic training outside(17 more words not shown)
- EToday's business executives(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What qualifies the executives to fix the curriculum?
I can see the concern about teaching that stays too far from real business. Here, “action learning” means learning from practical experience. But hypothetical cases aren't automatically worthless. A made-up case might isolate an important problem clearly, while a real case adds useful experience. We could want a mix of the two.
Still, let's grant that these schools have been too academic and too slow to respond. Showing that the current approach has problems doesn't show that handing curriculum design to executives will solve them. What if the executives bring no useful insight the academics lack?
What we’re looking for
Notice the proposed division of work. Executives would decide what the trainees should study; academics would still teach it. For the necessary assumption, I'd look for something that makes the proposed new contribution worthwhile. The executives need to bring relevant knowledge to this particular problem. We don't need to declare the academics useless or incapable of teaching.
Working the answers
- A
An academic could have useful practical experience and still lack some insight needed for current management training. The argument criticizes the schools' approach; it doesn't require every bit of their practical experience to be worthless. A is much stronger than the recommendation needs.
- B
“Too often” isn't “only.” A school could use real cases in some classes while relying too heavily on hypothetical ones overall. The recommendation doesn't depend on academics using hypothetical situations every single time.
- C
This works against the proposal. The academics are still supposed to teach the new curriculum. The author distinguishes deciding what to teach from doing the teaching; criticizing the current curriculum doesn't establish that the teachers are incapable of delivering a suitable one.
- D
We aren't comparing business schools with other kinds of academic training. Whether programs elsewhere respond better or worse to business needs doesn't tell us whether executives can supply what's missing here. The proposed change could make sense without any claim about those other programs.
- ECorrect
The executives have valuable business insight that the academics lack. That supplies a reason to give them the role of setting the curriculum: they can contribute something missing from the present approach.
Take that contribution away. If the executives have no valuable insight beyond what the academics already possess, why should bringing them in address the complaint about distance from business realities? The recommendation's stated rationale would lose its needed advantage.
This doesn't prove that executives will design excellent courses or that the change will solve every problem. It identifies something the author needs to take for granted when presenting their input as the remedy.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.