It is currently 16 Oct 2017, 15:20

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Behind the hope that computers can replace teachers is the idea that

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

VP
VP
User avatar
D
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1178

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 53

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Behind the hope that computers can replace teachers is the idea that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2017, 21:53
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

87% (01:24) correct 13% (01:57) wrong based on 55 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 53

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 13 Mar 2017
Posts: 519

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 62

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Behind the hope that computers can replace teachers is the idea that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2017, 23:59
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.
_________________

MBA Social Network : WebMaggu

Appreciate by Clicking +1 Kudos ( Lets be more generous friends.)

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 62

Behind the hope that computers can replace teachers is the idea that   [#permalink] 24 Sep 2017, 23:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Behind the hope that computers can replace teachers is the idea that

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.