PrepTest 154, Section 2, Question 4
Editorial: Some primary schools' early education reading programs(52 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AEarly education reading(22 more words not shown)
- BChildren will be(19 more words not shown)
- CParents will usually(15 more words not shown)
- DThe goal of(14 more words not shown)
- EImproving children's facility(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Pay a child for each book, and maybe the child reads more. Why should that make us suspicious?
There are questions we could ask about the program. Perhaps it mostly rewards children who would have read anyway.
But the editorial raises a different concern: children might come to see reading as a chore they do for money, rather than something satisfying in itself.
I can see that risk. I can also imagine the opposite result. A child who wouldn't otherwise pick up a book might start for the payment, discover books they like, and keep reading for pleasure. Someone can need a push to try reading and then find it enjoyable. Being paid at the start doesn't automatically rule out developing a love of it.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for a principle that supports the editorial's concern. My first thought is a rule connecting payment with treating an activity as a transaction instead of enjoying it for its own sake. That would support the worry we just identified. But let's see what the choices actually offer; we shouldn't force an answer to match that prediction.
Working the answers
- A
I can see an argument for this. Paying by the book might encourage a child to choose lots of short, easy books instead of a few challenging ones. If challenging reading should take priority, that incentive could be a problem.
But notice how much we've supplied: we invented that choice of books, and we introduced a different objection to the program. The editorial's reason for suspicion is the risk of making reading feel like a chore. A doesn't explain why that particular risk should count against the program. Keep it tentative while looking for an answer that supports the actual reasoning more directly.
- B
Choosing your own books could matter, but payment and choice are separate issues. These children might be paid for books they choose themselves. We aren't told the program assigns books, so B doesn't establish a problem with the program or connect payment to the editorial's concern.
- C
Parents could have the greater influence while schools still ran useful reading programs. We aren't deciding whether teachers or parents matter more. We need a reason to be suspicious of this particular approach, and the comparison doesn't supply one.
- DCorrect
This takes a different route from my prediction: it tells us what the program should accomplish. If the goal is a love of reading, then a risk of teaching children to view reading as a chore is a reason for concern.
Without that goal, the objection might miss the point. Suppose the only aim were to get children reading more and acquiring knowledge. They could regard it as a chore and still achieve that aim. D makes enjoyment itself the goal, so the editorial's concern now directly bears on the program's success. That's why D fits the reasoning better than A's separate objection about book selection.
- E
This suggests a possible benefit: becoming a more capable reader could lead to enjoying reading. It fits our earlier thought that starting for one reason might eventually produce enjoyment. We aren't told exactly how much these programs improve reading ability, but E certainly doesn't provide a principle supporting suspicion of them.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.