Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q18 Education critics' contention that the

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

Education critics' contention that the use of calculators in mathematics classes will undermine students' knowledge of the rationale underlying calculational procedures is clearly false.

Conclusion (clearly = opinion)

The contention that is clearly false. rephrase: Using calculators in math isn't going to undermine students' knowledge of the rationale underlying calculational procedures.

Evidence

Every new information-handling technology has produced virtually the same accusation.

Evaluate

This doesn't seem like any of the ten famous flaws, so let's switch into "Find an Objection" mode:

Given that ... every time there's been a new information-handing technology, there's been accusations that it will somehow corrupt the way we think,

How can we argue that ... using calculators in math will undermine students' knowledge of the rationale underlying calculation processes?

We could say a couple different things: 1. These accusations have been correct! Each new information-handling technology has corrupted our thinking.

2. Sure, those previous accusations turned out to be false. But this one's different! In the case of calculators, it really will mess up how people think.

Goal

The author is assuming that the previous times when people freaked out about a new technology, it just a bunch of overblown fear. It didn't turn out to be any sort of problem.

And the author is also failing to consider that even if a pattern were true in the past (concerns about a new technology have always turned out to be overblown), it might not be true in the present.

18.

The reasoning in the argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. Correct

    presents only evidence whose relevancy

    Why this is right

    This is a weird answer. It's basically totally disrespecting the evidence, since this evidence doesn't ever actually address the issue of calculators head-on. If I ran for office as a Democrat and said, "I'm going to protect gun rights", someone might argue, "Don't listen to him. Every previous Democrat has tried to scale back gun rights." LSAT would reject that sort of logic. So what? This isn't every previous Democrat. This is Patrick Patrickson. Consider him on his own merits, even if his name is hella dumb. Similarly, if people are concerned that use of calculators will hurt students' knowledge of calculational procedures, then let's hear some educational science evidence to back that up or to challenge that. If we're going to say that this concern is clearly false, we better have some data or some ideas specific to kids using calculators in math classes. Otherwise, we're just talking about other situations, and who knows whether they're relevant here? So in one sense, this answer is saying, "Why should I believe that this evidence about past instances of new information-handling technology is relevant to this situation with using calculators in math class?" It can also be interpreted to mean, "Why should I care that previous instances of new technology were met with skeptical accusations? You haven't established that the people who were worried about the new technology turned out to be wrong about their fears. Without hearing that part of the equation, I have no way to judge the impact of the fact that people previously had fears. After all, if their fears turned out to be ill-founded, then that would help my argument, not yours."

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

    62% picked this

  2. draws a conclusion based on

    Not Equivocation

    This somewhat refers to the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the author uses the same term or concept multiple times to mean different things. We're not angry at this argument because we don't have a definition of "knowledge". We're mad because the author is rejecting this claim about calculators and math class without saying anything about calculators or math class.

    9% picked this

  3. takes for granted that the

    Not Assumed / Too Strong: always

    Since this answer begins with takes for granted / presumes, we can ask ourselves whether it presents a Necessary Assumption. Did this argument need to assume that new technologies always have advantages that outweigh the disadvantages? Of course not. We'd never pick an answer that strong on Necessary Assumption, so for the same reason we wouldn't here. The author is only concluding something about calculators. She doesn't have to commit to any beliefs about every single one of history's long pantheon of new information-handling technologies.

    12% picked this

  4. takes a condition that suffices

    Not Necessary vs. Sufficient

    This somewhat refers to the #1 famous flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author presents a conditional logic relationship in a premise and then applies that relationship in an illegal backwards or negated fashion. There's nothing resembling that going on here. We could call the 2nd sentence a conditional logic premise, if we wanted to: If new info handling ? Then produced same technology accusation For this argument to then commit a Nec vs. Suff flaw with that conditional, the author would have needed to argue, "Since this same accusation has been levied against calculators in math class, we can conclude that calculators in math class must be a new info handling technology", or she would have argued, "Since calculators in math class aren't a new info handling technology, we can conclude that calculators in math class have not prompted such accusations."

    6% picked this

  5. concludes that a hypothesis is

    Bad Evidence Match

    When an answer says Concludes X simply because Y, then X should match the Conclusion and Y should match the Premise. The conclusion was indeed saying that a hypothesis is false. Was the evidence saying that the critics' hypothesis contradicts other beliefs they hold? No the evidence didn't talk about the critics at all.

    11% 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