[Anonymous]

So was this question predicated on figuring out the conditional reasoning? When I first looked at this question, it looked like it was. After reviewing it, it doesn’t look like understanding the conditional reasoning was that important on this question . I struggle with this a little. (When to focus on the conditional reasoning and when not to on necessary questions.) Also, I can see why E was the right answer, but the word “significant” stopped me dead in my tracks. How did they justify this in the stimulus?

[dannypearlberg]

Yeah, I don’t think understanding conditional reasoning is important on this question. Focusing on the conditional reasoning doesn’t really have anything to do with the question type- it’s just a matter of when it’s required to understand what’s going on in the stimulus.

Think about the negation of E: Qualified teachers could be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs. If that’s the case, then the argument falls apart, for the only reason to think that reducing class sizes would probably not improve overall student achievement is due to the presumption that there won’t be enough qualified teachers. There’s already a shortage of qualified teachers, so if E had said “No qualified teachers could be persuaded to relocate to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs”- the denial of that way of putting it wouldn’t be enough to make the argument fall apart, for that would be consistent with ONE qualified teacher being persuaded to relocate, and that wouldn’t be enough to make the argument fall apart. That’s why E uses the language “significant”- the argument needs to be assuming that there aren’t a bunch of qualified teachers that will come over to the educator’s region.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Danny, I do have another question. The reason why I thought the conditional reasoning should have been the way to go at first was because necessary and sufficient assumptions test
conditional reasoning more than other assumption family questions. On the PT 64 I got burned for not thinking about it on two necessary questions when I should have. Is there any way to better recognize when to use it.? How do you approach necessary/sufficient questions with conditional reasoning?

[dannypearlberg]

I definitely don’t approach any of the question types thinking that it is likely to involve conditional reasoning. Which questions from 64 did you get burned on?

[Anonymous]

Q. 12 and Q. 26 on section 3

[Anonymous]

Q. 12 and Q. 26 on section 3. The other Dan already explained question 12 to me, and he said generally look for those term that match on conditional terms

[dannypearlberg]

Conditional language (“if”, “unless”…) and matching terms are definitely good , but not perfect, indicators. I guess my main focus is always on figuring out why the author thinks they have presented a good argument, and then poking a hole (or holes) in their argument. If there aren’t any good indicators that conditional reasoning is involved, and I’m able to point out something wrong with the argument without using conditional reasoning, then I’m not going to try to go digging for hidden (i.e. less obvious) conditional reasoning in the stimulus. If there aren’t any good indicators that conditional reasoning is involved but I’m having trouble finding something wrong with the argument, I might go back and check to see if there is any less obvious conditional reasoning involved that may help me understand why the author thinks they have presented a good argument. Both Q. 12 and Q. 26 contain pretty good indicators of conditional reasoning, which is really just another way of saying that when I am trying to figure out why the author thinks they have presented a good argument, I find myself using the conditional reasoning presented in the stimulus.

Back to the original question: 65 Section 4 Question 13 doesn’t really contain any good indicators that conditional reasoning is involved, and the fact that it is a necessary assumption question really tells me nothing re whether to look for conditional reasoning. My strategy here was to figure out why the author thinks they have presented a good argument, and then try to poke a hole in the argument.

[Anonymous]

In your view, what is a “good indicator”?

[Anonymous]

OK I think I see what you mean. When you find that you have to follow the chain in order to understand the argument? Is that what mean by “good indicator”?

[dannypearlberg]

Exactly 🙂

[Anonymous]

Thanks Danny