Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S2 · Q4 Although smaller class sizes

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

Although smaller class sizes are popular with parents and teachers, the evidence shows that large scale reductions in class size lead to only slight improvements in student performance.

Conclusion

Public funds would be better spent on efforts to recruit and retain better teachers than on smaller class size.

Evidence

Smaller class size is know to lead to only slight improvements in student performance.

Evaluation

This seems to be testing a pretty straightforward assumption that .

However, "better" is too fuzzy. When LSAT is testing this concept, we need to dial in on exactly what "better" means in this argument.

For example, if I said, , then I'm assuming that "vase is better than watch". But what I'm really assuming is .

In this argument, the author is saying "better teachers is better than smaller class sizes", for what reason? What advantage does finding/retaining better teachers supposedly have?

The advantage brought by smaller class size is "only slight improvements in student performance" -- so our author must be assuming that the advantages brought by finding/retaining better teachers is greater than "only slight improvements in student performance".

Goal

Find an answer saying .

4.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

  1. Reducing class size is an

    Too Strong: extremely expensive

    The author certainly believes that there is some expense involved in reducing class size, because she brings up the cost-benefit consideration of limited finances. But she doesn't need to assume it's extremely expensive. Even moderately expensive would still justify her argument that there might be better ways to spend that precious money.

    6% picked this

  2. Correct

    Dollar for dollar, efforts to

    Why this is right

    This is just affirming that "the option the author is endorsing is better than the option the author is rejecting". It says "dollar for dollar" because the whole argument is couched in terms of how to make the best use of limited finances. Our author is assuming, for a given amount of money, we'd get more benefit by recruiting/retaining good teachers than by reducing class size. If we negated this, it would surely weaken (as must every correct answer on Necessary Assumption), for it would be saying that "dollar for dollar, you get larger improvements from reducing class size than from getting and keeping good teachers".

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

    92% picked this

  3. Because reducing class size is

    Trap

    Unrelated to Goal Out of Scope: getting public approval Too Strong: much easier / most This has nothing to do with the Conclusion, which is about recruiting/retaining better teachers, so it's definitely not related to our goal. The concept of "getting approval" has never been discussed. The author certainly hasn't committed herself to a strongly worded claim like, "getting public approval to reduce class size is much easier than over 50% of other educational policies".

    0% picked this

  4. Reducing class size is the

    Too Strong: most effective way

    This conclusion is Comparative, not Superlative. It says that public funds would be better spent on Y than on X. The author doesn't need to assume that recruiting/retaining teachers is #1. She just has to assume it beats out reducing class sizes. I can say "Harvey would be better off going to University of Texas than to University of Arizona for law school", and that doesn't mean I believe that University of Texas is the best law school.

    1% picked this

  5. In practice, it is difficult

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: difficult to identify Too Strong: most productive The author is never discussing "the most productive" use of education dollars. She is definitely encouraging us to always ask, "Is there a better way to spend our money", but she hasn't encouraged us to ask, "Is this the absolute #1 most productive way to spend our money". She definitely hasn't offered any commentary suggesting her beliefs on how easy / difficult it would be to identify that #1 use of money.

    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