QUESTION TEXT: Psychologist: Phonemic awareness, or the…
QUESTION TYPE: Must be True
- Learn language ➞ phonemic awareness (sounds) AND symbolic letters
- Whole language method SOME learn language
ANALYSIS: The first statement above shows there are two necessary conditions for learning a language. The second statement shows that some people using the whole language method did learn a language.
There, we can make a deduction by combining the statements. The whole language method has met both necessary conditions for some people:
Whole language method SOME Learn language ➞ phonemic awareness (sounds) AND symbolic letters
(With “some” statements, we can combine the leftmost statement with the two necessary conditions as a new “some” statement.)
- This goes too far. We only know the whole language method has worked for “many” students. So we can’t say it “invariably” works. Invariably means “all”.
- Too specific. I said the whole language method meets both necessary conditions. But that doesn’t mean that meeting the first condition immediately causes someone to meet the second.
- This doesn’t follow. Someone who knows a language can read (the second condition). But it’s possible for someone to know a language’s sounds but not read. (It’s called “illiteracy”.)
Negating one necessary condition doesn’t necessary negate the other necessary condition.
- CORRECT. By combining the statements, we can see the whole language method meets both necessary conditions. One of the necessary conditions was learning how sounds are represented (phonemic awareness), so this answer must be true.
- This doesn’t follow. We know the children must know letters; otherwise they couldn’t read. But that doesn’t mean the whole language method taught them. They could have learned the alphabet separately. D, by saying “does not prevent”, is a better answer.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly