Q1 - Educational TV

[wj097]

WOW...what is happening here. How in the world is B a necessary assumption??

P: School vs TV analogy
C: TV cannot be educational

ONLY?? experiences that resemble school can be educational?? The argument should be intact even if there are other experiences that are educational e.g., reading books, going to the zoo, etc. Excluding would rather give us SUFFICIENT reason to believe the conclusion...What is necessary though is that "experiences that resemble school can be educational"... If B is the correct answer then this would imply that statements that is broader than the scope covered by the argument (TV, School, education) can be necessary...

Thx

[sumukh09]

B says

Educational ---> Experience that Resembles a school environment

The argument's conclusion is supported by evidence that argues the advantages of a classroom experience over merely watching educational TV. The argument is essentially that educational television cannot be considered educational because 1) it doesn't take place in a classroom and 2) there's no language development taking place watching television whereas in school there is

So it must be true, necessary, that an educational environment requires a school-like experience which is what B is saying. If we negate B, then it destroys the argument. To negate B we need to show the sufficient condition taking place and it not necessarily triggering the necessary condition.

B negated: What can be educational does not have to be only experiences that resemble a school environment.

If that were true, then educational television being a contradiction would be invalidated. Why? Because we already know that the television being referred to in this stim is "educational," so then it must be true that a school like environment is necessary if the argument is trying to conclude that educational television is a contradiction.

I understand the point you're making, but the difference lies in the fact that the argument specifies that we're talking about educational television and not just regular television. Reading books, going to the zoo, etc. all CAN be educational, but they don't HAVE to be, so in this case since we know that they're talking about TV that is already supposedly educational, then their argument relies on the assumption that B provides. Hope this helps!

[wj097]

You know what, you are totally right...something just tricked my mind..hope it doesn't happen on the test date.

Ok so let me recalibrate.
Here, it is definitely necessary that ONLY school-like renders educational environment, since evidence for such DEFINITE denial of TV being educational is a very limited comparison of only TV and School. So going from such limited base to such definite conclusion, the arguer must be thinking (in his head) that all other situations, e.g., zoo going, book reading, does NOT render educational environment; if we don't exclude every other situations, then no guarantee that TV is also excluded from that very other situations.

Another peculiarity that I noticed for this argument is that it gloss es over the link between school like environment being education, so it is also necessary to establish that link, making it bi-conditional "IF and ONLY IF experiences closely resemble that of school then can it be educational"

Would you agree?

Thx

[sumukh09]

making it bi-conditional "IF and ONLY IF experiences closely resemble that of school then can it be educational" Would you agree?

Thx

I think that's a great question and I'm not 100% but if I were to guess, I would say it wouldn't be a bi conditional relationship because there could be several other factors involved that are necessary for something to be considered educational. Since we're bound by the information in the argument, we can't make any leaps beyond what's given in the stimulus, and calling this a bi conditional relationship would definitely be a leap that I would argue is too strong to make. But I'd be interested with what the Manhattan crew has to say about your question because it definitely got me thinking about it.

[WaltGrace1983]

Argument
Classrooms and television are different in interaction, communication, and purpose
-->
Education television is not actually educational

Thoughts
The author is assuming here that something is educational only if it is like the experience of being in a classroom: educational --> like classroom. However, why does something educational have to be like a classroom? The correct answer is going to bridge this gap and it is going to say that "Yes. It is only possible to be educational if it is like a classroom"

(A) "Should" will give us a tipoff that this is an answer to be weary of. Also, we don't really have any reason to assume this. Eliminate it
(B) Correct. This is what we expected and if we try to negate it, the argument doesn't hold up: "NOT only experiences that closely resemble what takes place in school can be educational."
(C) This may be true but the argument is talking about certain aspects (interaction, communication, and purpose). It is saying that "because it doesn't have these aspects, television is not education." Therefore, it doesn't matter if television reinforces some values
(D) Better? How can we make that claim? Also, how do we know if something is better? This answer choice leaves too much in the air and if we negate it the argument is left unchanged: "Educational television are NOT qualitatively better than most other television programs." Where is mention of classroom/school? Eliminate it
(E) Interesting answer but is not something that we need to assume. It doesn't really fit in our argument because it doesn't bridge the gap.

As for the question about it being a bi-conditional, here is what I think....

Here is the argument again:
Generally different from classroom --> not educational
Educational --> generally similar to a classroom

Just because something is generally similar to a classroom doesn't mean its educational. Which is what bi-conditional would say.