PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 1
More and more computer programs that provide solutions(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- AThe effective use(17 more words not shown)
- BMany of the(15 more words not shown)
- CDevelopment of composites(27 more words not shown)
- DMost of the(23 more words not shown)
- EThe engineering curriculum(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A calculator can do the arithmetic for me. Does that mean I no longer need to understand the problem?
The author sees more programs that solve engineering problems and concludes that engineers need less understanding of mathematical principles. I can see how software could save them work. But doing the calculation is only part of solving a problem. An engineer might still need mathematical understanding to think through what the problem requires or recognize what a result means.
That's why I'm not ready to remove the math instruction. Making room for other important subjects sounds useful, but the author hasn't shown that software eliminates the other reasons for learning these principles.
What we’re looking for
For the weakener, I'd look for a reason engineers still need that understanding. My first thought is some part of their work beyond having a program perform a calculation. The answer could show why the promised replacement doesn't make the knowledge dispensable.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This gives us an even more immediate reason to keep teaching the math: engineers need it to use the programs effectively. The software might perform the calculations, but that doesn't mean someone without the underlying understanding can make effective use of it. Instead of replacing the need for mathematical knowledge, the programs themselves depend on their users having it. That undermines the reason for reducing the subject's place in the curriculum.
- B
Already using the programs doesn't tell us whether their users still need mathematical understanding. Engineers might routinely use them and rely on that knowledge every time. B establishes use, not that the programs can replace the instruction—or that they cannot.
- C
This gives the author a reason to want room for other subjects. New materials may be important enough to teach. But that doesn't challenge the claim that software makes mathematical principles less necessary. If anything, it helps explain the proposed curriculum change's goal without resolving whether cutting math is a good way to achieve it.
- D
The availability of suitable computers doesn't tell us what engineers need to understand to use the software. The programs could run on every firm's machines and still require substantial mathematical knowledge. The obstacle we're questioning concerns the engineers' understanding, not whether their computers are compatible.
- E
Teaching students to use programs is different from establishing that mathematical principles are unnecessary. A curriculum could require both, or teach some programs without addressing the mathematical understanding these engineering tasks require. E tells us about existing computer instruction, not whether it replaces or requires math instruction.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.