[email protected] wrote:Math education in this country does a disservice to our children. In the lower grades, it should focus on the basic skills that students will need in higher grades to develop the ability to solve complex problems. Learning basic math skills is like learning the scales and chords that one will later use to master complicated concertos and symphonies. However, math educators in this country seem to have it backward, emphasizing in higher grades the same narrow, skills- based approach that students learned in lower grades rather than the
analytical tools they will need to solve complex math problems.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
A] While music is common in elementary school curriculums, it is rarely taught in high school.
B] On international tests of math skills, high-school students in this country performed no worse than did their counterparts from countries where
problem-solving is emphasized in higher grades.
C] When presented with a math problem to solve, students in higher grades are more likely to arrive at different answers than students in lowers grades are.
D] Older students tend to receive higher grades in math than do younger students.
E] Universities in this country report a steady increase in the percentage of native first-year students who qualify to take advanced mathematics courses such as calculus.
I got lost between the options B and E. Let us reason again and explain all the options:
Conclusion: 'Math education in this country does a disservice to our children.'
Premise: In the lower grades the students should be learning the basic mathematical skills and in the higher grades the students should be learning the analytical skills required to solve more complex and difficult problems. But the system in our country is doing the opposite or solving the same questions or teaching the same things in the higher grades as they did in the lower grades. Hence disservice.
Option A: Completely out of scope for that matter... Not at all related to our conclusion.
Option B: Children following a system in our country are being compared to the children following the system in other countries following a different approach. This actually weakens the argument saying that there is actually no difference between the two approaches where students are performing the same or in the same region. So even when our (US) system has a different approach, there is no much difference between them and students of other countries. So there is no disservice done. So this can weaken the conclusion.
Also this option talks about the performance of the children studying in countries following different systems. Now there can be difference between students studying in the same system or same school or same institution. So performance of the children can be considered out of scope as well. What if the children are very smart and they are following a wrong approach and that is why they performed no bad or worse than the children under a different system. IN that case there is a disservice. So performance of the children can be out of scope for this argument hence neutral.
Option C: This strengthens the argument,saying that when the higher grade students have not yet mastered the skills they need more practice and hence the current system is better for our children.
Option D: Again out of scope. The comparison is not between older and younger students. The comparison is between higher grades and lower grade students. There is a lot of difference in the two terms. Hence the option D is out of scope.
Eg: What if a older (not very bright) student is in the lower grade and a younger (bright) student is or has reached in the higher grade. Therefore only the systems should be compared.
Option E: This weakens the argument. If the universities all over the country report that the students of our country have a steady increase in the marks or performance and it is specifically talking about the students who have entered the zone of solving mathematical problems, hence the current system is good enough for the current students can easily solve complex problems later on.
This option also strengthens the argument saying that if there is a steady increase in the mathematical skills then the higher grade students should be given complex and analytical tools that help in solving complex problems. Hence the current system is not good and hence a disservice.
I am stuck between the options B and E and I have given the reasoning for that.
I do not know which option is absolutely correct for the conclusion to make sense and do good.
Kindly all the experts please help...
