PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 8
The laboratory experiment, the most effective method for(44 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AScientific knowledge is(15 more words not shown)
- BIn some secondary(8 more words not shown)
- CComputers have proven(12 more words not shown)
- DSecondary schools and(14 more words not shown)
- EUniversity students can(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do students need to know how to use that equipment before they reach university?
I can see the appeal of a real experiment: handling equipment is different from watching a simulation. But that doesn't settle whether schools should stop the switch to computers. We need to know why the missing hands-on experience matters. What if students can still learn the science effectively?
What we’re looking for
The author calls laboratory experiments the most effective way to teach science, then bases the recommendation on a particular consequence: students arrive at university unable to use lab equipment. Being unfamiliar with the equipment is treated as a problem serious enough to stop the trend. That's the connection I want to question. For a weakener, show that students can succeed at learning science without arriving with that experience.
Working the answers
- A
Schools may need computers to keep up with changing knowledge. But using computers and eliminating hands-on laboratory work aren't the same decision. A could support adding computers while leaving the author's recommendation against replacing experiments intact. It doesn't address whether the lost equipment experience causes a problem.
- B
Watching a teacher demonstrate an experiment doesn't necessarily give students experience operating the equipment themselves. Nor does this fact show that such experience is unnecessary. The author's complaint about what students know how to do could apply to these schools too.
- C
Learning scientific vocabulary is useful, but the author is concerned about using laboratory equipment. Computers could teach terminology very well while leaving students with a serious practical disadvantage. This benefit doesn't directly challenge the reason given for stopping the trend.
- D
Money already spent doesn't show that the educational concern is mistaken. Schools might have purchased many computers and still need hands-on experiments. The investment tells us about a past decision, not whether entering university without equipment experience creates a learning problem.
- ECorrect
Students can learn science effectively at university without prior experience working with laboratory equipment. That challenges the importance of the consequence the author points to: arriving without those skills needn't prevent effective learning.
E doesn't claim that laboratory experiments have no value or that nobody ever needs to learn to use equipment. It addresses timing and educational success. If students can learn effectively without bringing that experience with them, the author needs another reason to insist the trend must stop.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.