QUESTION TEXT: Parent P: Children will need computer skills…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
ARGUMENTS: P argues that children will need computer skills. So we should teach children about computers from an early age and eventually teach them programming languages.
Q argues that things change so fast that the children’s computer knowledge would become obsolete by the time the children enter the workforce.
ANALYSIS: We’re trying to support P. The right answer shows that skills learned on obsolete technologies will transfer to new technologies.
- This answer sounds very good. But P is talking about giving children skills for tomorrow’s world. P wants to give children training now so that they can adapt to the world once they graduate. P doesn’t necessarily think the children will need computer skills before then. This answer choice talks about adapting to today’s world.
- This wouldn’t address Q’s point that the technology the children did learn to use would become obsolete. And if children will adapt then do we really have to bother teaching them?
- CORRECT. This is a sensible reply. Children gain general computer skills through technology training, even if that technology eventually becomes obsolete. These general skills will let them work with any new computer.
- Analogies can’t prove anything. Just because people don’t have to relearn to drive doesn’t mean that people won’t have to relearn how to use new computers. Computers are very different from cars.
- This doesn’t change the fact that the technology we teach the children during school will become obsolete by the time they graduate.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Timothy Glenn says
I don’t understand why D isn’t the right answer. Maybe true, that analogies don’t prove anything, but we weren’t task to prove, but to counter Q’s arg.. Q’s arg was Pointless! Why? tech rapidly changing, & therefore obsolete..
Obsolete thus always useless..
D attacks the assumption, by address just because you learn something that’s no longer used doesn’t mean it useless..
FounderGraeme Blake says
The problem is that analogies really can’t be used to counter anything. You’re reading something into D that isn’t there. An analogy can be flawed, and therefore it isn’t proof unless we know it’s a valid analogy. And, we don’t know the analogy in D is a valid analogy.