#8 - The laboratory experiment, the most effective method

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

This author discusses the fact that the lab experiment is disappearing from most curricula among secondary schools, who instead opt for computers. The author's conclusion is presented in the middle of the stimulus: "This trend should be stopped." This conclusion is based on a single premise, presented at the end of the stimulus: The practice results in many secondary school students going to university without having experienced a lab experiment. The question stem asks us to weaken the argument, so we should likely be looking for an answer choice that either disproves the referenced result, or proves that such a result is acceptable.

Answer choice (A): The author does not argue against computers, but rather for lab experiments, so this answer choice would not weaken the argument.

Answer choice (B): This possibility is implied by the language chosen by the author, who describes the lab experiment as "disappearing from curricula," in general, so the practices of select secondary schools is not relevant to the author's more general discussion.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect for the same reason as answer choice (A) above: the author does not argue against the value of computers, but for the value of lab experiments.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect for the similar reason to that of incorrect answer choices (A) and (C) above: the author is not concerned with the ongoing use of computers, but with the dwindling use of lab experiments.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. If this is true, then the author's argument is weakened; the basic premise is the fear of losing this practical lab experience. If science can be taught effectively without such practical experience, then perhaps we shouldn't be overly concerned about the referenced secondary schools' approach.

[kcho10]

Hello,

I am really struggling with this one. The laboratory experiment is the most effective according to the argument. Why would it matter that students can learn science in some less effective manner?

On the other hand, A seems to show that computers are necessary for a use that no other method would be able to replicate. I chose this answer because it makes it seem like computers are necessary. Is this one wrong because it is talking about computer use in general, not the use of computers for experimentation?

Thank you

[nicholaspavic]

Hi kcho,

I feel like the stimulus may be a bit of a distractor here for you. Remember that the key issue here is science education and that is the most important thing to the author. The difficulty of "keeping up" with is not attacking the conclusion that the practice needs to stop. Focus on the conclusion that is concerned with science education in other words. Answer Choice (E) says that students can sill learn effectively without having had experience with law equipment which totally negates causality which the author claims that the cause is that students don't know how to work with lab equipment.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps.

[drewwellnitz]

I am struggling with this question. I chose A (which, admittedly, I don't love) because I assumed that if scientific knowledge is changing rapidly, the equipment and laboratory experimentation might be outdated and no longer the most effective method. I understand I made a leap in my reasoning.

However, what I am struggling with is understanding why E is correct. If the answer said "secondary students can learn..." (rather than "University students can.."), I would have selected it as my answer. To me, knowing whether or not university students can learn effectively without the equipment does nothing to determine whether or not students leave secondary school without knowing how to work with laboratory equipment, and whether or not laboratory experimentation is the most effective. They can still learn science effectively while also not knowing how to use the equipment and while. Additionally, the university could perhaps learn even more effectively had it done laboratory experimentation.

Thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide, it is much appreciated.

[Dana D]

Hey Drew,

With weaken questions, you want to zero in on what the author's actual argument is. Here, it's that we should stop letting secondary students use computers to simulate experiments instead of actually doing them with lab equipment, because this is letting kids go to college without knowing how to use lab equipment.

The issue here is that the author is saying lab experiments are the most effective way to learn, but then insisting the shift away from physical use of lab equipment to computers is bad, without providing justification. If kids are using computers instead of test tubes and beakers, why should that matter? They're still engaging in labratory experiments (albiet simulated) and therefore they're still engaged in the most effective manner of learning science. Who cares if they go to university and don't know how to use lab equipment?

Answer choice (E) hits on that weakness by saying that letting secondary students come to college without knowing how to use lab equipment is no big deal - they can still learn science effectively without knowing how to use lab equipement.

Hope that helps,
Dana

[drewwellnitz]

Hi, Dana:

Thank you for your response; it has helped. Unfortunately, I'm still struggling with this problem, and I can't seem to figure it out. My apologies for dragging this out, but I would really love to learn it.

The first sentence says laboratory experimentation is the most effective method. This means learning via computers can still be effective, just not as effective as experimentation in a lab. Therefore, knowing that university students can effectively experiment using a computer also doesn't tell us anything because the author's point is still valid. He/she is suggesting that university students could learn most effectively if they had done laboratory experimentation. To me, answer choice E does nothing to weaken the stimulus.

Thank you again for helping me through this problem!

[Dana D]

Hey Drew,

No problem at all - this question intentionally tries to get the reader to create two options in their mind when reading: learning via lab experiment or learning via computer. I think that's where your confusion is coming from as well. In reality, lab experimentation can be done through test tubes and beakers or through the computer. So learning via a computer is not secondary to lab experimentation, as long as students are still employing lab experiments on the computer. It's not physically handling beakers and test tubes in your own hands that is the most effective method of learning, it's the process of adding two compounds together and seeing their result. So this could be done the old school way - by you doing it with lab equipment in person - or maybe it could be done via a computer simulation, where you drag and drop animated beakers filled with liquids to create a solution and see the reaction. Knowing how to handle lab equipment isn't important, because either way, you're learning via a lab experiment, the most effective manner of learning science.

The author implies that knowing how to use lab equipment is needed to do experiments, but answer choice (E) suggests that's not true, because students can learn just as well via the computer simulated experiments. And if that's true, then the author's argument that learning via computer's "must be stopped" is weakened, because contrary to their belief, we don't need to teach kids how to use lab equipment to let them learn via experiment.

In summary: computer simulated lab experiments are not a second-best way of learning compared to lab experimenting - they are equally effective methods of learning science. Therefore, the author saying we must stop using computers just because kids don't know how to use lab equipment doesn't make sense, unless they need to know how to use lab equipment to learn science. Answer choice (E) says they don't need to know about the equipment, therefore it weakens the argument.

Does that make sense now?

[drewwellnitz]

Hi, Dana:

Thanks again for the response! Everything you explained makes sense when summarized; however, it still confuses me when I just read the stimulus and answer choices at face value. Perhaps I'm doing more harm than good by focusing on this question, but two things in particular still confuse me.

1) You mentioned, " intentionally tries to get the reader to create two options in their mind when reading: learning via lab experiment or learning via computer." I fail to see how these aren't two different options. The first sentence states that laboratory experimentation is disappearing (decreasing) and that simulated experiments are now occurring (increasing or increased). If laboratory experiments encompass both experiments with equipment and virtual ones, how can it be disappearing, but one of the elements it encompasses is increasing? I view it as laboratory experimentation is its own separate entity, and experimentation virtually via computer is its own separate entity.

2) This leads me to my second point of confusion, which is with answer choice E. You stated, "(E) suggests that's not true, because students can learn just as well via the computer-simulated experiments". The answer only says they learn effectively, not that they learn just as well. I agree, if the answer choice had said something to the idea of "University students can learn science just as effectively without having had experience in working with laboratory equipment.", it would be correct.

Do these points of confusion make sense? I may be beating a dead horse and should move on, but it has been stuck in my head. I can't thank you enough for helping me through this.