PrepTest 91+, Section 2, Question 2
Educator: Few problems faced in daily life can be solved most effectively, if at all, by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline in isolation. Thus, schools should not require students to take courses in individual academic disciplines but should instead require them to take interdisciplinary courses.
Educator: Few problems faced in daily life can be solved most effectively, if at all, by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline in isolation. Thus, schools should not require students to take courses in individual academic disciplines but should instead require them to take interdisciplinary courses.
Educator: Few problems faced in daily life can be solved most effectively, if at all, by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline in isolation. Thus, schools should not require students to take courses in individual academic disciplines but should instead require them to take interdisciplinary courses.
Educator: Few problems faced in daily life can be solved most effectively, if at all, by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline in isolation. Thus, schools should not require students to take courses in individual academic disciplines but should instead require them to take interdisciplinary courses.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the educator's argument?
Problems faced in daily life usually can be solved effectively using only common sense.
Most teachers are able to teach courses in a single academic discipline more effectively than they can teach interdisciplinary courses.
Students who take only courses in individual academic disciplines are rarely able to combine knowledge from those disciplines.
Most students who are required to take courses that cover only single disciplines can effectively solve many problems faced in daily life.
Most interdisciplinary courses are not designed specifically to teach students how to solve problems faced in daily life.
Explanations
The question asks us to strengthen the educator's argument that schools shouldn't require students to take courses in individual academic disciplines and should instead require interdisciplinary courses.
The educator offers as support that few problems (i.e., some) can be best solved—if solved at all—by applying knowledge from any single academic discipline on its own.
How might we make this conclusion stronger?
Here, I just need something that helps the should or should not bits in the author's conclusion. Anything that further validates either of those prescriptive ideas should do the trick.
Let's take a look.
No chance. This is completely tangential to our author's argument. They don't bring up common sense, and even if they did, this would go against the author's interdisciplinary recommendation.
Nah, if anything this is a weakener. If teachers can teach singularly focused courses more effectively, then perhaps we should still focus on them, even if they don't help as much with everyday problems.
Boom. This is the answer. If learning in silos means we can't combine the ideas, then it totally makes sense to teach interdisciplinary courses.
No, like B, this is a weakener. If students who learn singular subjects can actually problem solve, it casts doubt on one of our educator's premises.
Nope. Also a weakener, though not a great weakener. If most interdisciplinary courses aren't designed to teach kids how to problem solve, then they may be no more effective than the already ineffective singularly focused courses.
0 Comments