PrepTest 135, Section 4, Question 13
Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AClass sizes in(15 more words not shown)
- BAt least some(24 more words not shown)
- CStudents place a(11 more words not shown)
- DHiring more teachers(22 more words not shown)
- EQualified teachers could(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the extra individual attention would be worth it.
Let's accept that smaller classes require more teachers and that the region already lacks enough qualified teachers. Hiring underqualified people could hurt education. But smaller classes could help it. Before concluding that the change probably won't improve achievement, I'd want to compare those effects. Perhaps a less qualified teacher working with fewer students could still give them enough additional attention to produce a net improvement.
What we’re looking for
My first thought for a required assumption is about that tradeoff: the benefit from individual attention can't simply outweigh the loss from weaker teaching. We're looking for something the educator needs in order to move from the staffing problem to the forecast about overall achievement. The choices may reveal another gap in that route.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us when the district should reduce class sizes. The conclusion instead predicts what reducing class sizes would do to student achievement. A rule for deciding what ought to be done isn't required to make that prediction.
- B
The argument doesn't require that some current qualified teachers would improve their students' achievement with smaller classes. It concedes more individualized instruction, but doesn't say that must produce improved achievement in any particular class. That additional claim isn't needed for the educator's pessimistic overall forecast.
- C
What students value most doesn't determine which arrangement improves their achievement. They might prefer one approach while learning more under another. The argument concerns educational results, not a ranking of student preferences.
- D
This sounds closer to our concern about the tradeoff, but it goes much further than the conclusion. 'Would not improve the achievement of any students' rules out every individual gain. The educator could allow some students to improve while thinking losses elsewhere would prevent an improvement in overall achievement. D isn't required.
- ECorrect
This exposes a different problem: why must the district fill its new jobs from the already limited local supply? Perhaps qualified teachers elsewhere could be persuaded to move, for example by an attractive offer.
If significant numbers relocated, the district could have smaller classes and qualified teachers. The alleged tradeoff would no longer be forced on it. The educator's use of a regional shortage therefore depends on ruling out this source of a substantial number of qualified recruits. E doesn't settle every question about class size, but it protects a step this argument needs.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.