PrepTest 127, Section 1, Question 23
Columnist: Even if the primary purpose of university(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AIt is better(9 more words not shown)
- BMany people with(7 more words not shown)
- CHaving a series(11 more words not shown)
- DHaving a general(10 more words not shown)
- ETechnical training does(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The columnist is willing to grant that a university's main purpose might be making students employable. Even on that assumption, the recommendation is to emphasize liberal arts rather than narrow training for a particular job. So this is not simply a claim that getting an education matters more than getting a job.
I can see the proposed benefit. Learning to reason could help someone face an unfamiliar problem instead of being limited to tasks they have already practiced. But how much does that flexibility matter for the jobs these students will pursue? A job built around a specific, established procedure may place different demands on a worker from a job full of new challenges. Perhaps students need both particular skills and broad reasoning ability.
There is another question: why couldn't technical training develop reasoning skills too? Learning a specialized task might involve solving problems and figuring things out. If both kinds of education supplied the benefit the columnist praises, naming that benefit would give us less reason to favor liberal arts.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, I would look for evidence protecting the claimed advantage. Showing that technical training does not provide those reasoning skills would help explain why liberal arts deserves the emphasis the columnist recommends.
Working the answers
- A
This ranks good education above good employment. The columnist is arguing that liberal arts deserves emphasis even if employability is the primary goal. A changes the goal rather than showing how this kind of education serves the goal better.
- B
Technical training leading many people to jobs gives us no additional reason to favor liberal arts. The question is comparative: why emphasize liberal arts instead? B offers a success associated with the competing approach.
- C
Finding a varied career more interesting does not establish that students are more employable after liberal arts training. The argument concerns their capacity to perform jobs, not how entertaining or varied they will find their working lives.
- D
This might sound favorable to a broad education, but it changes the comparison. We would need to assume that a general understanding of life is the relevant product of liberal arts and that practical skills correspond to the narrow training being criticized. Even then, calling one more important does not address the columnist's claim about employability through adaptable reasoning. D is less directly connected to the stated case.
- ECorrect
This removes a competing explanation of why technical training could be just as valuable on the columnist's stated measure. Liberal arts supplies useful reasoning skills; E says technical training does not supply those skills. That makes the reasoning benefit a reason to prefer the liberal arts emphasis.
E does not establish that liberal arts is the only possible way anyone can acquire reasoning skills, or that technical training has no other advantages. It strengthens this comparison by showing that the named alternative lacks the particular benefit on which the columnist relies.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.