Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q9 Psychologists report that children

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

Psychologists report that children in nine-month schools typically forget a significant amount of schooling during summer breaks.

Conclusion (We should conclude)

The twelve-month schedule is to be preferred insofar as academic learning is concerned.

Intermediate Conclusion

[The twelve-month schedule with three month-long breaks] will insure that students will not forget their schooling during their breaks.

Evidence (on the basis)

Psychologists report that children in nine-month schools typically forget a significant amount of schooling during summer breaks.

Evaluate

Since the conclusion is a Comparison about the academic learning that happens via the 12 month vs. 9 month schedule, we should be analyzing how academic learning is affected in each case.

How could we make the case that the 9 month schedule is better for academic learning?

The author will say that with 12-months, students won't forget their schooling during breaks, as they do with the 3 month summer break.

But what if students burn out, or miss out on cool summer academic opportunities because of the 12 month schedule?

There could be downsides to the 12 month schedule that would offset / outweigh the upside of "less forgetting after a break".

We could also object to the extreme claim that "students will not forget their schooling" after any of their three 1-month breaks. A month is still a decent time away from school and might lead to forgetting.

Goal

Let's look for an answer disputing that 1-month breaks really ensure that students won't forget their schooling, or for an answer saying that there could be downsides to the 12 month schedule that outweigh the upsides.

The reasoning above is most vulnerable to the criticism that it

relies on an unsubstantiated assumption
Irrelevant Comparison
The argument's assumptions are about whether students will forget schooling during breaks, not about the comparative value of academic vs. nonacademic learning. The argument explicitly states its conclusion applies "insofar as academic learning is concerned," so it is already limiting itself to academic considerations.
5% picked this
draws on an arbitrary distinction
Bad Evidence Match
The argument compares two scheduling plans. Where is it ever discussing two different groups?
2% picked this
Correct
takes for granted, in comparing
Why this is right
Since this begins with "takes for granted", we ask ourself whether this is really an assumption the author was making. The "undesirable result" mentioned with the 9 month schedule was that students forget stuff after their break. Was the author assuming that "forgetting stuff after break" was only correlated with the 9 month schedule? Was she assuming that on the 12 month schedule, students wouldn't forget stuff? Definitely. In fact she even claims the 12 month schedule would insure that students don't forget their schooling. Is this an objectionable assumption? Sure, I mean it's very plausible that students would forget some of their schooling after a month break. Aren't we basically fighting a premise? This answer is essentially calling B.S. on the "since" claim that ends the paragraph. Isn't it illegal to contradict a premise? Yes, we're fighting a premise (or Intermed Conc, same diff). No it's not illegal. LSAT never says anywhere that you can't fight a premise. It rarely happens, but has been happening more on recent LSATs than it used to.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
81% picked this
fails to show that the
Bad Evidence Match
This answer sounds like it's accusing the argument of a Sampling flaw, saying the data on nine-month schools might not be representative of children generally. But the argument doesn't need the data to be representative of all children. It's not extrapolating and saying "if X is true here, X will also be true of this wider set". It's just comparing which schedule is better, 9 month or 12 month. It doesn't need either of those schedules to be indicative of the majority. It could be that 80% of children are currently enrolled in 12 month schedules and only 20% are in 9 month schedules, or vice versa. Whether the experience of 9 month students is representative or not doesn't factor into judging whether it's preferable, academically, to the experience of 12 month students.
12% picked this
claims to accept a view,
Self-Contradiction
This answer describes a self-contradiction flaw: accepting a view and then rejecting it. No such contradiction exists in this argument. The argument presents the psychologists' finding about nine-month schools and uses it as evidence. It never rejects or contradicts it.
1% 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