PrepTest 142, Section 2, Question 7
Talbert: Chess is beneficial for school-age children.(49 more words not shown)
Talbert's and Sklar's statements provide(13 more words not shown)
- Achess promotes mental(1 more words not shown)
- Bmany activities promote(8 more words not shown)
- Cchess is socially(5 more words not shown)
- Dchildren should be(4 more words not shown)
- Echildren who neither(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Sklar isn't necessarily denying that chess develops useful mental skills. The objection is that children could spend that mental effort on something with more value to society, such as science.
Think about having a limited amount of teaching time. Talbert lists reasons chess benefits children: they practice thinking ahead, reasoning, and avoiding careless moves. Sklar responds that using their attention this way diverts it from science. Those speakers can disagree about the educational choice without disagreeing about every benefit Talbert names.
What we’re looking for
The disagreement question requires some care because Talbert never explicitly says, “Teach children chess.” The favorable assessment suggests support for teaching it, while Sklar explicitly objects. I'll look for the best-supported conflict and avoid attributing a more specific claim to either person without evidence.
Working the answers
- A
Talbert says chess promotes mental maturity. Sklar doesn't deny that. Sklar could grant that benefit while still objecting that children's efforts should go toward science. An objection to an activity isn't automatically a rejection of every favorable claim about it.
- B
Neither speaker settles how many other activities develop mental maturity equally well. Maybe mathematics or Sudoku offers similar benefits; maybe not. Talbert doesn't say chess is the only route, and Sklar's claim about science's societal value doesn't compare its effect on mental maturity with chess's.
- C
Read both halves. Sklar rejects the claim that chess has societal value and says science does. But Talbert never says science lacks value. Praising chess doesn't commit Talbert to criticizing science, so we can't place the speakers on opposite sides of this combined claim.
- DCorrect
This is the strongest supported disagreement. Talbert's description of chess as beneficial to school-age children gives us reason to infer support for teaching it. Sklar directly states an objection to teaching it. Talbert's side is implied rather than explicitly announced, but the exchange supports this practical disagreement more strongly than the alternatives.
- E
Nobody says children must play chess or study science to become mentally mature. A child might develop those skills through mathematics or other activities. Describing one way to develop maturity doesn't establish that everyone who misses that route is immature.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.