#3- Researcher: Any country can determine which type of

[Barcelona10]

June 2008 Test, LR Sec. 4, # 3, ASSUMPTION: Question starts with "Researcher".

In this question, I realized a problem with negating answers that I frequent. I chose E because that would suggest a methodological problem with the nationwide tests, so a possible Defender Assumption. The answer was A. The issue I had with A is that when I negated it I got: “A type of school system that works well in one country will work well in SOME other countries.” I negated the quantity. Should I have negated the “working well” instead of the Quantity statement. I have been told to negate only the quantity statement when they are involved in an answer choice. I’m a little confused…what should we do in these situations? Any advice would be much appreciated.

[Jon Denning]

Thanks for the question. The negation idea can be a bit of a tricky one, but the good news for assumptions like this one is that often you can negate by simply using the word "not" (or "not necessarily"). So I'd negate A to give "a type of school system that works well in one country will not necessarily work well in any other country." And that clearly attacks the argument.

Make sense?

[Barcelona10]

Makes sense, thank you!

[Sambenz]

I chose C in this question initially, although I wasn't sure between A and C. When reading the stimulus I noted that just because results work in one country doesn't mean they will work in another. I thought a similarly worded supporter assumption, would be the answer. To me, both A and C looked good (E seemed to have extra info, there was no mention of comparable grades in the stimulus).

My rationale for C was that in order for the argument to work, one must assume that countries can take information from the nationwide tests and thus improve their public school systems. Therefore the argument requires C to be assumed. However, upon reading C more closely, I see my error. In the stimulus it explains that Nationwide tests would be used to determine the superior public school system, and the worse countries would adopt the systems of the countries with the best scores. It never mentions that one would be able to determine the features that account for the differences.

Just kind of writing how I understood the question after the fact.

[Christen Hammock]

Hey Sambenz!

You're exactly right. I think (C) probably appealed to you initially because additional research and testing would, in real life, be a helpful tool. It's just not an assumption required by the author's argument! Great job, and thanks for adding your thoughts on the question.

Christen

[smtq123]

Kindly explain how the negation of option A destroy the argument as "not necessarily" means that it "could be true" and therefore in my view it doesn't destroy the conclusion "Any country CAN determine which type of public school system will work best for it". I do concede that it weakens the conclusion!

Thanks in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi smtq,

Remember that could be true is not the same as not necessarily true. The temptation is to feel like they are equivalent terms, but they are not, and it's a relevant difference here.

The negation of answer choice (A): A type of school system that works in one country will not necessarily work in another country. This leave the possibility that the school system will not work for other countries. Not necessarily true is something that works 0-99 percent.

Using the term could be true instead would mean that it's something that is true 1-100 percent of the time. It doesn't include the idea that it would not be true. We want to make sure that our negation is the complete logical opposite of the answer choice. Since our answer choice uses the term "will," which represents 100 percent will happen. We to use the term not necessarily will to cover the rest of the logical space (0-99 percent to happen).

If it's not necessarily true that a school system that works well in one country will work in any other country, then the conclusion is weakened.

Hope that helps!