Educator: Few problems faced in daily life

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact1% picked this

   Problems faced in daily life usually can be solved effectively using

   If common sense alone can solve most daily-life problems, this actually undermines the entire premise of the educator's argument. The educator's reasoning depends on the idea that daily-life problems require multi-disciplinary academic knowledge. If common sense handles most of those problems, then the need for any particular course structure — single-discipline or interdisciplinary — becomes questionable. But this answer does not strengthen the argument; if anything, it makes the entire debate about course structure less relevant. The educator's recommendation is motivated by the difficulty of daily problems; if those problems are not actually that hard, the motivation evaporates regardless of whether you restructure the courses.

   1%
2. B

   Weakens1% picked this

   Most teachers are able to teach courses in a single academic discipline more effectively than they

   If teachers are better at teaching single-discipline courses, this creates a practical reason to keep the current system. The educator argues that interdisciplinary courses would better prepare students for daily life, but this answer introduces a significant cost: teaching quality would decline under the proposed change. Better teaching in single-discipline courses means students may actually learn more effectively from the existing format, even if the format does not perfectly mirror daily-life problem structures. This answer gives a reason to prefer the status quo rather than to adopt the educator's recommendation, which pushes against the conclusion rather than supporting it.

   1%
3. C

   Correct93% picked this

   Students who take only courses in individual academic disciplines are rarely able to combine knowledge

   Why this is right

   The educator's argument has a critical gap: it assumes that because daily-life problems require multi-disciplinary knowledge, the way courses are structured determines whether students can apply that knowledge effectively. This answer bridges that gap directly. If students who take only single-discipline courses are rarely able to combine knowledge from different disciplines on their own, then the course format is the bottleneck — not the students' ability or motivation. This means switching to interdisciplinary courses is not merely a theoretical improvement; it addresses a real, demonstrated failure of the current system. Students are not naturally acquiring cross-disciplinary integration skills from separate courses, so the courses themselves need to build that capability. This provides exactly the bridge premise the argument was missing and makes the conclusion significantly more compelling.

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

   93%
4. D

   Weakens3% picked this

   Most students who are required to take courses that cover only single disciplines can effectively solve many problems

   If most students who take only single-discipline courses can effectively combine knowledge from different fields, that directly undermines the need for interdisciplinary courses. The educator's argument depends on the idea that single-discipline instruction leaves students unable to integrate across fields. But this answer says students handle the integration just fine on their own. If students already possess the cross-disciplinary competence the educator wants to build, then restructuring the courses is unnecessary. This answer removes the very problem the educator's proposal is designed to solve, which weakens rather than strengthens the conclusion.

   3%
5. E

   Weakens, If Anything2% picked this

   Most interdisciplinary courses are not designed specifically to teach students how to solve problems faced

   If most interdisciplinary courses are not designed to teach students how to solve daily-life problems, this undermines the educator's recommendation. The educator's entire reasoning is that daily-life problems require multi-disciplinary approaches, so courses should be interdisciplinary. But if the available interdisciplinary courses do not actually target daily-life problem-solving, then switching to them would not achieve the educator's stated goal. This introduces a practical problem with the proposed solution: the courses that exist do not match the purpose for which they are being recommended. At best this answer is irrelevant to whether the switch should happen in principle; at worst it suggests the switch would be ineffective in practice.

   2%