Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S2 · Q14 Until fairly recently, classroom computers

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

Until fairly recently, classroom computers were considered a luxury.

Statements

Used to be ... classroom computers were a luxury.

Now ... educators think that students without training in computer skills will lack the skills necessary to compete in the global marketplace.

However ... schools that emphasize computer technology spend more time teaching computer skills but less time developing students' basic math and reading skills.

Evaluate

Questions that ask us to support a Generalization / Proposition usually describe one specific scenario. The correct answer is safely worded takeaway, whereas trap answers are often too strong.

Our job isn't to judge whether it's good or bad that schools have re-allocated some of their math/reading time to computer time. We're just looking for a safely worded answer that restates that they have made this switch.

Something that used to be considered extraneous is now considered vital, and it seems to have resulted in a re-allocation of teaching time.

Goal

Look for the most provable answer we can derive from what we read.

14.

Which one of the following propositions is best illustrated by the statements above?

  1. A knowledge of the latest

    Out of Scope: no more valuable

    Nothing in the paragraph ranked how valuable computer tech was compared to (what we would have to assume are) fundamental disciplines like basic math and reading. This type of trap answer is just setting people up to psychoanalyze the author of the passage and guess where she's going next. "Hmm, she talked about schools caring more about computers, but then she says However they're spending more time on computers and less on basic math and reading. She must be mad about this?"

    4% picked this

  2. Schools cannot emphasize the teaching

    Too Strong: cannot

    Nothing in the passage indicates that it's impossible to emphasize the teaching of computer skills without neglecting other skills. It just says that schools that are emphasizing computer technology are spending less time on basic math and reading. We don't know if that shift in time allocation was mandatory because it's impossible to do one without neglecting the other, or if those schools simply chose to emphasize one and de-emphasize another. It's also a strong move to go from "spend less time developing basic math and reading skills" to the more extreme "neglecting other skills".

    11% picked this

  3. A complete rethinking of traditional

    Too Strong: complete rethinking required

    Wow, this is dramatic. The author just said a few neutral facts about schools. We can't extrapolate this "we'll have to blow the whole thing up!" kind of takeaway from that.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Attempting to keep pace with

    Why this is right

    This has the super-soft language we associate with correct answers on Proposition / Generalization questions. Doing X can result in Y (you only need one instance to support that). Did we hear of a case where keeping pace with recent educational developments resulted in neglecting basic skills in favor of other skills? Yes, pretty much. Since it's only fairly recently that we went from thinking of computer skills as a luxury to a necessity, we can call that a recent educational development. Spending more time emphasizing computer technology can match up with "attempting to keep pace" with these developments. Spending less time developing students' basic math and reading skills can match up with "neglecting basic skills in favor of other skills". Do we love every part of this? No. The causal aspect of it, can result, is never said explicitly. We are just seeing some plausible support for the idea that wanting to spend more time on computer skills led to spending less time on basic match / reading, since these two things go hand in hand among the group of schools emphasizing computer technology. Does spending less time on basic skills mean we're "neglecting" them? No, not quite. But by spending less time on anything, you could say you're neglecting it somewhat. Ultimately, this is just the most supportable answer, despite having some flaws to it.

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

    84% picked this

  5. Giving students a knowledge of

    Too Strong: the primary goal

    First of all, this passage is just neutral descriptions about what schools have been doing, so we have no support for anything opinionated like, "X should be the primary goal of education". Even if we were to pretend that we are modern educators, we know they want to make sure they impart computer skills, but we don't know if that's the #1 thing they want to impart. Calling it a primary goal would be much more reasonable than calling it the primary goal. It's also much broader to say "giving students a knowledge of new technologies" than it is to talk about emphasizing computer technologies. (it's not as if all new technologies are computer technologies)

    0% 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