mun23 wrote:
PraPon wrote:
Dean: The mathematics department at our university has said that it should be given sole responsibility for teaching the course Statistics for the Social Sciences. But this course has no more mathematics in it than high school algebra does. The fact that a course has mathematics in it does not mean that it needs to be taught by a mathematics professor, any more than a course approaching its subject from a historical perspective must be taught by a history professor. Such demands by the mathematics department are therefore unjustified.
The dean’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that expertise in a subject does not enable one to teach that subject well
(B) purports to refute a view by showing that one possible reason for that view is insufficient
(C) presumes, without providing justification, that most students are as knowledgeable about mathematics as they are about history
(D) fails to establish that mathematics professors are not capable of teaching Statistics for the Social Sciences effectively
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that any policies that apply to history courses must be justified with respect to mathematics courses
Added OA.
I am finding it difficult for me.can someone explain it in details plz................Hi mun23,
Here is what i did :
* Identify the logical structure of the argument :
Dean:
The mathematics department at our university has said that it should be given sole responsibility for teaching the course Statistics for the Social Sciences[
Fact or view].
But[
connecting word using to refute the precedent view] this course has no more mathematics in it than high school algebra does.
The fact that a course has mathematics in it[
one possible reason for the view]
does not mean that it needs to be taught by a mathematics professor, any more than a course approaching its subject from a historical perspective must be taught by a history professor[
refute again].
Such demands by the mathematics department are therefore unjustified.[
concludes using therefore that the reason is insufficent]
*Choose the answer choice that fit perfectly with the structure of the original argument :(A) presumes, without providing justification, that expertise in a subject does not enable one to teach that subject well
Clearly out of scope, the argument never mentionned anything about
HOW the expertise enables or not one to teach well or bad
(B) purports to refute a view by showing that one possible reason for that view is insufficient
Correct, it follows the structure of the argument
(C) presumes, without providing justification, that most students are as knowledgeable about mathematics as they are about history
Again, this is out of scope , the argument never mentionned
anything about students and their knowledge [always remember that you should stay with the perimeter of the argument]
(D) fails to establish that mathematics professors are not capable of teaching Statistics for the Social Sciences effectively
this is not what the author was trying to do, i.e
his purpose wasn't to establish that mathematics professors are not capable of teaching Statistics for the Social Sciences effectively , he was just implying that the course Statistics for the Social Sciences contains such a basic mathematics in it and does'nt require to be teached by a mathematic expert and so this option is WRONG
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that any policies that apply to history courses must be justified with respect to mathematics courses
Again, this is out of scope,
policies / respect ?!Hope that is clear enough !!!