Psychologist: Phonemic awareness

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: invariably7% picked this

   The whole-language method invariably succeeds in teaching awareness of how spoken language can be broken

   The final sentence says that many children taught the whole-language method successfully learn languages (which means they get phonemic awareness, which means they know that spoken language can be broken down into component sounds). But where's this answer getting invariably from. Way too strong!

   7%
2. B

   Reversal9% picked this

   When the whole-language method succeeds in teaching someone how to represent sounds by means of letters, that person acquires the ability

   There are a couple problems with this answer, but structurally it's trying to make a move from a Necessary condition for success (representing sounds by means of letters) to a guarantee of success (now they can read an alphabetic language). We know can read alph lang ? learned sounds-to-letters This says learned sounds-to-letters ? can read alph lang

   9%
3. C

   Illegal Opposite4% picked this

   Those unable to read an alphabetic language lack both phonemic awareness and the knowledge of how

   We know, Learned ? Phonemic Learned ABC lang awareness and Sounds-2-Ltrs In other words, ABC ? PA and L2S This answer is doing an illegal negation: ~ABC ? ~PA and ~L2S The only legal manipulation of the original statement is the contrapositive: ~PA or ~L2S ? ~ABC

   4%
4. D

   Correct54% picked this

   Some children who are taught by the whole-language method are not prevented from learning how sounds are represented

   Why this is right

   It's super weak (some = at least 1), which is an attractive quality on Inference, Necessary Assumption, and Reading Comp. We know that many (at least 5) kids who were taught whole-language also learned to read ABC languages. Thus, we know that these whole-language kids have achieved Phonemic Awareness and Sounds-to-Letters (two requirements of learning to read an ABC language). Therefore, it's clear in their case that the whole-language method didn't prevent them from learning Sounds-to-Letters. So this answer must be true.

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

   54%
5. E

   Out of Scope: succeeds (causal)24% picked this

   The whole-language method succeeds in teaching many children how to represent sounds symbolically by

   This is super sneaky and mean. The last sentence doesn't actually give the whole-language method any causal credit for helping the kids to learn to read ABC languages. If I say some kids who are taught Geometry in middle school learn how to do a kickflip on their skateboard, am I saying that they learned kickflips in Geometry? LSAC put those two ideas near each other so that our brains would fill in a common sense speculation that the whole-language method was a causal factor in them learning to read alphabetic languages. But the sentence only tells us that many whole-language students learn to read ABC. It doesn't betray where these students learn to read ABC, or whether whole-language plays any role in that.

   24%