I see a few cries for help on this one, so I will take a stab at providing a useful analysis for the larger community. Full disclosure: this one took me 2:45 to answer (correctly), a little longer than I would prefer to take, but I like to be careful in assessing exactly what the passage and answer choices are stating. As I so often do with CR questions, I took a peek at the question first so that I would know how to interpret the passage.
parkhydel wrote:
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously call into question the educational theorist's conclusion?
This is a weakener, and we need to put a dent in the conclusion of the educational theorist in particular. Thus, we have to stick strictly to that conclusion and any premises on which it is built. What does the passage tell us?
parkhydel wrote:
Educational Theorist: Recent editorials have called for limits on the amount of homework assigned to schoolchildren younger than 12. They point out that free-time activities play an important role in childhood development and that homework in large quantities can severely restrict children's free time, hindering their development. But the actual average homework time for children under 12—little more than 30 minutes per night—leaves plenty of free time. In reality, therefore, the editorials' rationale cannot justify the restriction they advocate.
Okay, the passage itself is not hard to follow.
Sentence 1 provides the backdrop:
editorials are calling for limits on homework for schoolchildren under 12.
Sentence 2 tells us why: too much homework = not enough time for
free time, thereby hindering development. ("All work and no play make...")
Sentence 3 provides a counterargument, starting with
but, appealing to an
average amount of homework time for children under 12. Apparently, since this number is about 30 minutes per night, children should have plenty of free time on their hands.
Sentence 4 is the conclusion, with a nice
therefore tossed in for good measure. In short, the educational theorist concludes that the people writing the editorials are unjustified in their call
for limits on the amount of homework assigned to schoolchildren under 12, given that average amount of time such schoolchildren spend doing homework each night. To weaken the conclusion, we need to find justification for those homework restrictions.
parkhydel wrote:
A. Some teachers give as homework assignments work of a kind that research suggests is most effective educationally when done in class.
The old
some trap. The majority of the time you see it, it will lead you down a dangerous path. Here,
some could mean two, and if just a handful of teachers were assigning this kind of homework, then there would be no need to call for restrictions on homework in general. Besides, the argument is based on children under 12 needing more free time at home. The type of homework assigned is not taken into account, just the volume of it.
parkhydel wrote:
B. For children younger than 12, regularly doing homework in the first years of school has no proven academic value, but many educators believe that it fosters self-discipline and time management.
We are not looking to side with educators here, just to weaken the conclusion of one particular educational theorist. If homework had some
demonstrable positive developmental effect on children, one that was discussed in the passage, then that would weaken the position of the homework-restriction advocates. We do not care about what many educators
believe, in any case.
parkhydel wrote:
C. Some homework assignments are related to free-time activities that children engage in, such as reading or hobbies.
I did ponder this one for a time before dropping it over the same sort of unqualified
some that appeared in (A). This could represent a very small percentage of homework assignments pertaining to the target group, and think about it, if homework assignments were helpful to development, as the notion is presented in the passage, then this new information would weaken the position of the people writing the editorials, in fact the opposite of what we are aiming to do. Get rid of this answer and keep looking.
parkhydel wrote:
D. A substantial proportion of schoolchildren under 12, particularly those in their first few years of school, have less than 10 minutes of homework assigned per night.
I know, your knee-jerk reaction is probably to reject this answer because it would seem to weaken the call for restrictions on homework for schoolchildren under 12. If many such children are already getting less than 10 minutes of homework each night, then children under 12 have plenty of free time, right? Almost. We cannot ignore the part of the passage that tells us
the actual average homework time for children under 12 [is] little more than 30 minutes per night. The GMAT™ does this sometimes, going out of its way to point us in the right direction with quantifiers:
a substantial proportion of the target group gets less than 10 minutes of homework per night; therefore, we can conclude that a smaller proportion of the same larger group of schoolchildren, those under 12, must be getting a lot more homework to balance out the
average to
more than 30 minutes per night. These poor, overburdened schoolchildren. We can now appreciate how the call made in the editorials
is justifiable. This is our answer.
parkhydel wrote:
E. Some free-time activities teach children skills or information that they later find useful in their schoolwork.
Same
some, different context. This answer does not even bother to address the issue of homework, focusing instead on why free time may be beneficial, a point that is not being debated.
When approaching a CR question,
make sure you stick to what the passage says. The more you start interpreting information, the further removed your conclusions become. This was a tough question, at least for me, but with a focus on core principles of Verbal reasoning, I was able to use the process of elimination to great effect. I hope my analysis proves useful to others. If there are any doubts about anything, I would be happy to discuss the question further.
Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
As has been stated that some is dicey but isn’t substantial also a dicey word? Because the Educational theorists want for all students.
close
30 Apr 2022, 11:42
