QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument
CONCLUSION: Grodex Corporation should use the innovative new educational methods.
REASONING: Grodex Corporation generally requires creative workers. Childhood education shows that innovative methods produce creativity while traditional methods produce memorization.
ANALYSIS: You always have to watch for shifts in concepts. All of the educational evidence in the argument is about children. And you know from real life that children are different from adults.
The argument ends on “because”. So we are not looking for a conclusion. We are looking for a reason for the conclusion.
To prove that the innovative methods will work for Grodex, we need to show that the methods that work with children will also work well with adults.
- Nonsense. The argument doesn’t even mention high school. If you chose this, you need to focus more directly on what’s said in the stimulus.
- The argument wasn’t making a comparison of using educational seminars vs. not using them. Instead, the argument was about what type of educational seminars to use.
- This tells us the seminars might not be effective. It doesn’t tell us what type of seminar to use.
- CORRECT. This shows that the evidence about children is also applicable to the adults who will take Grodex’s seminars.
- The argument doesn’t say whether creativity and memorization are linked. It’s not clear how this proposed linkage is relevant to adult educational seminars. If the two were linked, would that change Grodex’s actions?
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly