PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 4
Maria: Thomas Edison was one of the most(80 more words not shown)
Frank's reasoning in his response(12 more words not shown)
- Afails to address(11 more words not shown)
- Bdoes not consider(11 more words not shown)
- Crelies on using(10 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes that no(12 more words not shown)
- Efails to criticize(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could someone learn the technical material without going to school?
That is the question Frank needs to answer. Maria points to Edison's achievements despite his very limited formal schooling. I have a small reservation about her example: a few months of school isn't literally no school. At most, the example clearly shows that a long formal education wasn't required for Edison's achievements.
But Frank doesn't challenge her on that point. He says the example no longer applies because modern inventors need much more technical knowledge. Let's grant that they do. How does needing knowledge establish that they need formal education?
What if someone gets that knowledge from books? What if they learn through online lessons and practice? Those possibilities let us accept Frank's claim about the need for knowledge while rejecting his claim about the need for school. Formal education might be an excellent way to learn without being the only way.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to criticize Frank's response, so keep our attention on his jump. He needs to connect acquiring extensive technical knowledge with attending school. Pointing out that today's technology is more complicated doesn't supply that connection.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Technical knowledge might be acquired without formal education. That is exactly the possibility Frank overlooks. A self-taught inventor could have all the knowledge Frank says is now needed and still lack the schooling he claims is necessary. The requirement for knowledge doesn't by itself establish a requirement for school.
- B
Better schools might make formal education more useful. They wouldn't establish that it is required. Even an excellent course can teach material someone could also learn from books or practice. Frank's problem concerns whether school is necessary, not whether today's schools are better than Edison's.
- C
Both speakers use crucial to describe important contributions to technological advancement. Frank disputes whether someone could make those contributions today without formal education; he doesn't change what counts as an important contribution. The disagreement doesn't depend on giving that word two different meanings.
- D
Frank doesn't compare Edison with other inventors of Edison's time. Another inventor could have been just as productive, or more productive, without affecting Frank's claim about what inventors need today. This proposed assumption has no role in his response.
- E
Frank can accept the historical facts about Edison and argue that present conditions differ. Failing to challenge those facts isn't automatically a mistake. What he must establish is that the change he identifies actually makes formal education necessary. More required knowledge doesn't do that unless school is required to obtain it.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.