PrepTest 144, Section 4, Question 21
At a large elementary school researchers studied a(67 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- ASome students who(14 more words not shown)
- BThose children who(26 more words not shown)
- CMany of the(21 more words not shown)
- DSome students who(30 more words not shown)
- EAt least some(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What else changed for these children besides learning chess?
We have a small group who completed the program, so I would initially wonder how they were selected. But the result isn't merely that these children did well. They improved after the program. That's the change the author wants chess to explain.
Perhaps they also had an excellent teacher. If all of them were in Mr. Johnson's class and his teaching improved their schoolwork, the chess program might be getting credit for his work. A better curriculum could do the same thing. Learning chess and improving at school can happen together without the reasoning skills used in chess causing the improvement.
What we’re looking for
For the weaken question, look for another explanation of the academic gain.
Working the answers
- A
Other students learning chess at home doesn't tell us what happened to their schoolwork. If we learned that those students didn't improve, we might have a comparison to examine. A gives us no academic results for them, so it leaves the argument's proposed connection unresolved.
- B
This is tempting because the students who finished were already higher achievers than those who dropped out. That could matter to how we describe the group. But why did the finishers improve relative to their own earlier performance? The comparison of starting levels doesn't explain that increase. Our concern is the cause of the change, not merely which group began ahead.
- CCorrect
The children wanted to join a chess team, and membership required high grades. Now they have a concrete incentive to work harder at school. Their performance could improve because they are trying to qualify, rather than because practicing chess has strengthened general intellectual abilities. Chess could still be part of the story by creating that goal; what C undermines is the particular explanation based on the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in playing.
- D
Study sessions can help students without preventing chess from helping students too. The argument doesn't claim that chess is the only route to academic improvement. Evidence of another successful method doesn't explain away the gains in the chess group.
- E
This compares chess talent among students who did and didn't complete the program. The question is whether learning chess explains improvement in schoolwork. Being a better chess player isn't itself evidence about that academic change.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.