Bunuel wrote:
Enthusiasm for the use of calculators in the learning of mathematics is misplaced. Teachers rightly observe that in some cases calculators enable students to focus on general principles rather than the tedious, largely rote calculations that constitute the application of these principles. But principles are more likely to be remembered when knowledge of them is grounded in habits ingrained by painstaking applications of those principles. The very fact that calculators make calculation easier, therefore, makes it reasonable to restrict their use.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Some students who know how to use calculators also thoroughly understand the mathematical principles that calculators obey.
(B) Slide rules, which are less technologically sophisticated analogues of calculators, were widely used in the learning of mathematics several decades ago.
(C) It is much more important that students retain the knowledge of general principles than that this knowledge be easily acquired.
(D) Habits that are acquired by laborious and sometimes tedious practice are not as valuable as those that are painlessly mastered.
(E) Teachers’ enthusiasm for new educational aids is often not proportional to the pedagogical effectiveness of those devices.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
This argument sounds fairly reasonable to me. If it’s true that “principles are more likely to be remembered when knowledge of them is grounded in habits ingrained by painstaking applications of those principles,” and if “calculators make calculation easier,” then it’s not unreasonable to suggest that maybe we should get rid of calculators when teaching math. Students will remember the principles better if they have to “painstakingly” do the calculations themselves.
But if I were to object, I might say, “Um, isn’t math already painstaking enough? I mean even with a calculator, isn’t it possible that math students are already doing plenty of painstaking applications of principles?”
If the answer to my objection is yes, then the argument is in a tough spot. Since we’re asked to strengthen the argument, one good answer would be, “Math isn’t painstaking at all when calculators are used.” This would strengthen the argument by defending it from one particular attack. Let’s see if that’s on the right track.
A) This is actually a weakener. If some of the students already thoroughly grasp the principles the calculator is using, then why the hell would you force those students to keep doing the calculations they know how to do?
B) This answer is irrelevant, because it doesn’t even say whether it was a
good idea to use slide rules or not. What matters is whether we
should use calculators. The fact that we did use slide rules is useless, if we don’t know whether slide rules were helpful or not.
C) This isn’t what we predicted, but it does strengthen the argument. Using a calculator makes it easier to learn general principles. But painstaking application of principles makes it more likely that those principles will be retained. If retention is “much more important” than ease of acquisition, then that suggests that calculators should be abandoned. This is definitely a strengthener, so it’s the best answer so far.
D) This would weaken. We need a strengthener.
E) Teacher enthusiasm is not relevant here. What’s relevant is an objective analysis of whether or not calculators should be used, regardless of anyone’s opinion. And anyway, saying that teacher enthusiasm is “not proportional” doesn’t give us any information. Are they
more enthusiastic than they should be? Or are they
less enthusiastic? This is a truly terrible answer.
Our answer is C, because it’s the only one that strengthens the argument.