Science teacher: An abstract knowledge of science is very seldom

A. Th argument says that the secondary school sciences must be taught instead or in addition to ....
So,’only’ in the statement is wrong.
B. The importance of abstract sciences is not being discussed.
C. The argument doesn’t talk to no science educated people.
D. The argument says that courses should teach secondary sciences relating to practical issues. Doesn’t mean they don’t teach.
E. If to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues, such as health and public policy is related to making daily lives’ decisions, then teaching them will help their daily lives. So E.

Posted from my mobile device

Science teacher: An abstract knowledge of science is very seldom useful for the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives. But the skills taught in secondary school should be useful for making such decisions. Therefore, secondary school science courses should teach students to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues, such as health and public policy, instead of or perhaps in addition to teaching more abstract aspects of science.

Which one of the following is an assumption the science teacher's argument requires?

(A) Secondary schools should teach only those skills that are the most useful for the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives. - WRONG. Bit of an extreme case rather an inference.

(B) Teaching secondary school students the more abstract aspects of science is at least as important as teaching them to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues. - WRONG. Its like C only. A comparison is not necessarily true.

(C) Adults who have an abstract knowledge of science are no better at evaluating science-based arguments regarding practical issues than are adults who have no knowledge of science at all. - WRONG. This can be somewhat an inference for this passage. However, it is not true neither it helps.

(D) No secondary school science courses currently teach students how to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues. - WRONG. There can be such a situation wherein out of 1000 courses only 2 teach but eventually that leads us to nowhere. The argument still remains valid as it follows the majority aspects. So, this choice is a extreme case or exceptional case that does not help us in reaching the conclusion. It does not necessarily need to be true.

(E) The ability to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues is sometimes useful in making the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives. - CORRECT. If not so then conclusion falls apart.

Answer E.

Can someone help with the negation for the first option?

Premise 1: An abstract knowledge of science seldom useful for the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives.

Premise 2: Skills taught in secondary school should be useful for making daily lives decisions

Conclusion: Therefore, secondary school science courses should teach students to ''evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues'', instead of or perhaps in addition to teaching more abstract aspects of science.


(A) Secondary schools should teach only those skills that are the most useful for the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives.

Conclusion says ''instead of or perhaps in addition'', so option doesn't work. Moreover argument only mentions ''should be useful. Nothing about the degree of usefulness has been mentioned. NOT THE NECESSARY ASSUMPTION.

(B) Teaching secondary school students the more abstract aspects of science is at least as important as teaching them to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues.

Level of importance hasn't been talked about. Maybe, abstract aspects are unimportant, and we still can draw the conclusion. Just the ''usefulness in daily lives'' should be our concern.

(C) Adults who have an abstract knowledge of science are no better at evaluating science-based arguments regarding practical issues than are adults who have no knowledge of science at all.

Negating this choice is actually in line with the PREMISE:1, which says, ''abstract knowledge'' SELDOM useful. Hence, not necessary for the argument.

(D) No secondary school science courses currently teach students how to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues.

So what? Stimulus says ''what should be'' the case. Shouldn't be concerned about the reality.

(E) The ability to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues is sometimes useful in making the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives.

Stimulus goes from making daily life decisions to ''evaluate science based arguments''. The option bridges the GAP.