PrepTest 158, Section 3, Question 2
Educator: Few problems faced in daily life can(39 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AProblems faced in(11 more words not shown)
- BMost teachers are(17 more words not shown)
- CStudents who take(15 more words not shown)
- DMost students who(19 more words not shown)
- EMost interdisciplinary courses(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't we learn the subjects separately and put them together ourselves?
I can accept that knowing only math won't solve every problem in daily life. A problem might call for math, science, and some knowledge of people. But a student could learn those things in separate classes. Perhaps the student's mind combines them when the need arises. The educator hasn't shown that combining knowledge requires a course that combines the subjects.
There's another question, too: is solving daily problems the goal that should decide what schools require? Schools might also aim to deepen knowledge or prepare students for specialized work. The passage doesn't explain why its proposed benefit should control the curriculum.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen the recommendation. We could address either concern: give us a reason to prioritize daily problem solving, or show that students who learn subjects separately generally can't bring that knowledge together. We don't need an answer that fixes every issue to make the argument better.
Working the answers
- A
If common sense usually handles these problems, why do we need interdisciplinary courses to solve them? This gives students a way to manage daily life without the proposed change. It doesn't support the educator's claim that schools should require courses combining disciplines.
- B
This makes the proposed switch less attractive. Teachers generally teach the individual subjects more effectively than they teach combined courses. That doesn't mean they cannot teach interdisciplinary courses at all, but it gives us a drawback rather than a reason to favor the recommendation.
- CCorrect
This answers our first objection. Students who learn the disciplines only in separate courses rarely combine the knowledge on their own. So we can't simply assume that taking math, science, and other subjects separately gives students the combined understanding these daily problems require.
C doesn't prove that every interdisciplinary course will succeed. It does make the existing approach look less able to deliver the benefit the educator wants, which supports changing that approach.
- D
Students taking the separate courses can already solve many daily problems effectively. That makes us less convinced that replacing those courses is the right response. D doesn't establish that they solve every problem or that no improvement is possible, but it certainly doesn't strengthen the claimed need for the change.
- E
The educator recommends these courses because daily problems need knowledge from multiple subjects. Learning that most such courses aren't specifically designed to teach daily problem solving does not support that recommendation. A course could still help incidentally, so don't read E as proof that the courses never work. It simply gives us no reason to think the proposed curriculum is the solution.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.