broall wrote:
Behind the hope that computers can replace teachers is the idea that the student’s understanding of the subject being taught consists in knowing facts and rules, the job of a teacher being to make the facts and rules explicit and convey them to the student, either by practice drills or by coaching. If that were indeed the way the mind works, the teacher could transfer facts and rules to the computer, which would replace the teacher as drillmaster and coach. But since understanding does not consist merely of knowing facts and rules, but of the grasp of the general concepts underlying them, the hope that the computer will eventually replace the teacher is fundamentally misguided.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine the author’s conclusion that computers will not eventually be able to replace teachers?
(A) Computers are as good as teachers at drilling students on facts and rules.
(B) The job of a teacher is to make students understand the general concepts underlying specific facts and rules.
(C) It is possible to program computers so that they can teach the understanding of general concepts that underlie specific facts and rules.
(D) Because they are not subject to human error, computers are better than teachers at conveying facts and rules.
(E) It is not possible for students to develop an understanding of the concepts underlying facts and rules through practice drills and coaching.
Source: LSAT
Seems to be a really difficult question :
Short story :
1. Computers can replace teachers -> student’s understanding of the subject being taught consists in knowing facts and rules.
2. The job of a teacher being to make the facts and rules explicit and convey them to the student, either by practice drills or by coaching.
3. The teacher could transfer facts and rules to the computer, which would replace the teacher as drillmaster and coach.
4. Since understanding does not consist merely of knowing facts and rules, but of the grasp of the general concepts underlying them,
Conclusion : The hope that the computer will eventually replace the teacher is fundamentally misguided.Now we have to find the statement which will
most undermine or weaken the conclusion.
(A) Computers are as good as teachers at drilling students on facts and rules.Hmm.. Seems Ok. Lets check other options.
(B) The job of a teacher is to make students understand the general concepts underlying specific facts and rules.
This strengthens the argument. Nothing is written about computers.
(C) It is possible to program computers so that they can teach the understanding of general concepts that underlie specific facts and rules.
Now if it is possible to program the computers can teach the understanding of general concepts that underlie specific facts and rules, and it will make students to understand the concepts which is basically required in the paragraph. This will surely weaken the conclusion.
(D) Because they are not subject to human error, computers are better than teachers at conveying facts and rules.Again this might be +ve, but it is talking about conveying facts and rules but not about understanding of the concepts.
(E) It is not possible for students to develop an understanding of the concepts underlying facts and rules through practice drills and coaching.This option says that teachers are not required as they give practice drill and coaching to make student understand. But students doesn't develop understanding with practice drills and coaching. But it doesn't give any idea of how computers will make the students understand if teacher's activity can't help. So, out of scope.
My answer is C . Waiting for OA.