Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S1 · Q21 Some educators claim that it

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Some educators claim that it is best that school courses cover only basic subject matter, but cover it in depth.

Statements

Some say "only cover basic, but cover it deeply"

they say

Educator says

Evaluate

This is a Most Supported question, but because it's based of an argument structure, it's a fair bet that the Most Supported correct answer will sound a lot like a Necessary Assumption of the reasoning.

We can see our familiar PIVOT friend "But" starting the last sentence. So, since Most Supported loves to make us Reconcile what comes after the Pivot with what came before, we want to think about how the last sentence interacts with the previous ones.

Since the educators think that "solid grasp of basic" is a path that allows students to be able to study on their own,

whereas "simply learn a lot of factual info" is a path that doesn't set up students to be able to study on their own,

we can tell that the author is Assuming a Difference.

She must think that .

In shorter words, she's assuming that "solid grasp of basic concepts" enables students to "truly understand significance of facts".

Goal

It's hard to predict exactly what the answer will be like, but I would anticipate that it's dealing with the comparison between these two different paths (italicized stuff is assumed)

Plan A Plan B solid grasp of basic just facts on wide array can self-study well can't self-study well truly understanding doesn't truly understanding its significance? its significance

(Note: Once I saw the actual answer choices, I realized I had my goal dead wrong. This is really some sort of Apply the Principle type question. I decided to leave my original thought process in to honor The Struggle.

Once we see that these answers are new situations, to which we'll be applying the educators' advice, we want to see:

solid grasp of basic leading to ability to self-study wider breadth later or just facts without significance leading to inability to self-study later

21.

The educators' reasoning provides grounds for accepting which one of the following statements?

  1. It is easier to understand

    Bad Match

    We're looking for one of these two 1. solid grasp of basic leading to ability to self-study wider breadth later 2. just facts w/o significance leading to inability to self-study later) This answer has "solid grasp of usefulness leading to better ability to classify" That doesn't match #1.

    29% picked this

  2. It is more difficult to

    Bad Match

    Dull vs. Lively has nothing to do with the causal difference-maker from the stimulus. The stimulus was: thin but vs. wide but deep focus shallow focus

    1% picked this

  3. It is easier to remember

    Bad Match

    Explained by Teacher vs. Explained By Self is not the causal difference-maker from the stimulus. The stimulus was: teacher provides deep coverage of basic topics vs. teacher provides wide coverage of facts without providing real understanding That distinction was thought to make a difference in terms of whether a student would / wouldn't be good studying on their own later.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is easier to understand

    Why this is right

    The educators are arguing that it is better to cover a limited amount of material that pertains to a topic but to cover it in depth. They claim that this in-depth understanding of a limited scope within a topic will allow students to explore the rest of the topic on their own after the course. This answer represents an assumption of the educators' reasoning.

    Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    59% picked this

  5. It is easier to learn

    Opposite

    The educators are recommending that we learn a few things, but solidly. This advice seems to suggest that we should learn many things. And this answer is playing off a contrast between "simple vs. complicated" which was a distinction the educator was using. She was distinguishing between "in depth coverage of the basics" vs. "shallower coverage of a wider breadth of ideas".

    9% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free