TGC wrote:
On average, schools that provide an extra recess period each day during which children are allowed unstructured play score higher on state aptitude tests that schools that do not provide such a recess period. Therefore, the test scores at Malthus Elementary would likely improve if the school adds a recess period of unstructured play.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?
Nearly all of the schools providing the extra unstructured recess period provided it to reward students for their performance on the aptitude tests.
Schools that add an extra period of recess perform better than schools that merely switch from structured to unstructured recess.
Malthus already enjoys above average scores on the aptitude tests in question.
An extra recess period allows students less time to study for their aptitude tests.
Malthus formerly had an extra period of recess.
Source: Veri Prep
Hi,
I am not ashamed to say that the more i do CR, the more i need to practice.
However, let me add my 2 cents.
PREMISE: Schools providing extra recess period each day during which children ago unstructured play ===> score higher on state aptitude tests than schools that do not provide such a recess period.
CONCLUSION: The test scores at Malthus Elementary would likely improve if the school adds a recess period of unstructured play.
PRE-THINKING:1. The same trend will follow in future. i.e no obstruction will occur during implementation of the plan at Malthus Elementary.
2. Cause and effect: extra recess ===> higher state aptitude tests
3. The test score at Malthus Elementary school are representative to state aptitude test.( There is a difference in terms, maybe the test that Malthus Elementary have are internal tests)
CHOICES:A) Nearly all of the schools providing the extra unstructured recess period provided it to reward students for their performance on the aptitude tests.This weakens our assumption 2. This shows that until students score well they will not get extra unstructured recess period.
According to this option, the event will never occur. Because here, Effect Y occurs prior to Cause X, weakening the argument.
B) Schools that add an extra period of recess perform better than schools that merely switch from structured to unstructured recess.The comparison b.w various schools makes no sense, it actually strengthens the argument that the plan will be effective.
C) Malthus already enjoys above average scores on the aptitude tests in question.Malthus wants to improve the score. It already enjoys has no effect on the conclusion.We have to weaken the conclusion that something will obstruct it.
D) An extra recess period allows students less time to study for their aptitude tests.This is the tricky part. The argument already states that children go for unstructured play, and this unstructured play somewhere helps them to score better.
So, this option does not weaken the fact that unstructured play helps to score better.
E) Malthus formerly had an extra period of recess.Look at the word "formerly", the argument states that the extra recess is given on "daily basis".
Had the word "formerly" replaced with "daily", the argument would have weakened.
Therefore, i will go with A.
Thanks,
Jai
KUDOS if it HELPED..!!!