Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S1 · Q16 Debater: As a pedagogical practice

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

Debater: As a pedagogical practice, lecturing embodies hierarchy, since the lecturer is superior to the student in mastery of the subject.

Debater's Conclusion (thus)

Hierarchy in lecturing is a great weakness.

Debater's Intermediate Conclusion

Lecturing involves hierarchy.

Debater's Evidence (since)

The lecturer is more expert than student in the subject; but people learn best from peer interaction.

Respondent's Conclusion (thus)

The hierarchy in lecturing is a strength.

Respondent's Evidence

All teaching and learning are hierarchical because content must proceed from simple to complex (e.g., arithmetic before calculus).

Evaluate

When we're being tested on what's flawed with a rebuttal there are some usual suspects: - ad hominem (denying their right to make an argument) - unproven vs. proven false (going too far in opposite direction) - straw man / equivocation (distorting their argument) - irrelevant response (not seeming to listen to their argument)

The debater was saying that students would learn better from a peer than from an "expert" who stands above them with superior mastery and, in some sense, must talk down to them.

The respondent doesn't discuss this at all! They act like they're responding to the same conversation because they use the word hierarchy, but they're not addressing whether students are better served by learning from a peer rather than an expert.

Instead, the respondent talks about the sequence in which we teach topics. That's tangential to the conversation we were having. We can agree on a sequence of topics, but we still need to discuss whether it should be taught by an expert or by a peer.

The sense in which the respondent is discussing hierarchy has nothing to do with the sense in which the debater was discussing hierarchy.

16.

The respondent's reply to the debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the respondent

  1. concedes one of the major

    Bad Description

    The respondent doesn't concede a major assumption of the debater's argument. The respondent isn't even discussing what the debater was talking about, so it would be hard for them to concede / agree to one of the debater's ideas. Also, even if this had occurred, is it objectionable? It's fine to concede a point to your opposition. In fact, that often makes you look more reasonable / more logically sound.

    3% picked this

  2. takes for granted that teaching

    Bad Assumption

    The respondent doesn't have to assume that there's a teaching method that's effective in math that's also effective in other disciplines. Were we talking about teaching methods? We're talking about a curricular choice to introduce simpler material before more complex material. Is that a teaching method? If we say that is a teaching method, then the author isn't assuming that it's effective in multiple disciplines. She says out loud in a premise that "all teaching and learning must proceed from simple to complex".

    6% picked this

  3. fails to consider the possibility

    Bad Objection

    Since this begins fails to consider, we'll ask if it weakens. But the conclusion is only about the hierarchical component of lecturing. This is talking about the non-hierarchical parts of lecturing, so it's outside the scope of the conclusion and can't impact this conversation. If the author were concluding something broader, like, "Thus lecturing is a good thing", then this answer would weaken.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    applies a key concept to

    Why this is right

    This is describing the famous "Equivocation" flaw. An equivalent answer could read, "Uses the term hierarchy in two different ways". The conversation began by discussing the hierarchical part of lecturing that consists of an expert talking to someone with less mastery. The respondent was talking about the hierarchical part of lecturing that involves going from simpler material to harder material. The flaw, in shifting topics like this, is that the 2nd person never actually responded to the 1st person's concern.

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

    80% picked this

  5. takes for granted that the

    Bad Assumption

    This is similar to (B). Does the author say anything about the conceptual structure of math? Not really. It just offers the example that teaching math proceeds from simpler arithmetic to more complex calculus. If that does qualify as a conceptual structure, then the author isn't assuming that this conceptual structure would hold for other disciplines. She flat out says it as a premise: "all teaching and learning must proceed from simple to complex".

    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