PT127 · S1 · Q23 Columnist: Even if the primary

Were we told that a "liberal education" is more of a good education than is technical training? No. Is it a common sense thing we all know that liberal education is better education than technical training? Again, no. People might respectfully disagree about which one, if either, is better. So stressing that it's better to have good education doesn't help us move towards "we should emphasize liberal arts rather than technical training", because we have no common sense (or passage-provided) link from liberal arts to good education.

This is such a weakly worded idea that it's unlikely to be a correct answer on any Impact question like Strengthen / Weaken / Paradox / Principle-Strengthen / Sufficient Assumption. "Many" doesn't have a precise definition but something like "at least five" works. So this answer is just saying "at least 5 people with narrow technical training manage to find jobs". Okay ... I'm sure we assumed that many people with technical training and many people with liberal arts education manage to find jobs. This certainly doesn't give us any way to argue that we should emphasize liberal arts rather than technical training.

This is attaching a positive to "having a series of different jobs". Do we know whether "having a series of different jobs" is attached to liberal arts vs. technical training? We don't, nor is there a strong common sense knowledge that one type of education is more associated than the other with having a series of different jobs. So stressing that it's better to have a series of different jobs rather than only one job doesn't help us support that "we should emphasize liberal arts rather than technical training", because we have no common sense (or passage-provided) link from liberal arts to "more likely to have a series of different jobs". The passage only suggests that a person with liberal arts education would theoretically be able to work a lot of different jobs, since they have the tools to perform jobs for which they've received no specialized training. But that just means they're capable of getting hired a bunch of different places. It doesn't mean they're going to frequently leave the job they're at for a new one.

This is attaching a positive to "general understanding of life". Were we told that a "liberal education" is more likely to confer a general understanding of life than technical training is? No, we only heard that liberal arts gives you reasoning skills that allow you to adapt to new intellectual challenges. So hearing that it's better to have understanding of life than to have practical skills doesn't help us with the conclusion of "it's better to emphasize liberal arts than technical training", because we don't have any means of saying that liberal arts provide a better general understanding of life than technical training does. This is kind of a mean trap answer in the sense that in the real world liberal arts education is often touted as producing more "well-rounded" graduates (which might connote that they have a better understanding of life). But this answer is just saying "it's better to have a general understanding of life than to possess practical skills". However, it would be even better to possess, both, right? Do we really think that people whose college education emphasizes technical training don't have a general understanding of life? Of course not. We all have a general understanding of life by the time we're 12 or 13, probably.