by noah Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:14 pm
Quick bit of forum protocol: please simply type in the first five words of the stimulus - don't paraphrase it. That will make it easier for future forum users to search this forum. I've edited this one for you already.
This argument concludes that if a school vacation policy is justified by the tradition of a 3-month summer break, it's that we should determine the policy according to economic need. Why? Because the 3-month summer break was put in place to allow folks to farm, as was needed in the 19th century economy.
This is all in response to an argument that we should not extend the school year because a 3-month vacation is a tradition.
We're asked how the argument counters the objection - that is, the objection to extending the school year. The correct answer should say something like "it points out that the tradition actually means something different in this debate." And this is basically what (C) provides!
(A) is not true! There's no discussion of incorrect information or understanding regarding the length of time.
(B) is tempting, however the argument doesn't say that any information is irrelevant, just that a different interpretation should be used.
(D) is silly. How can we tell anything about anyone's concern for tradition.
(E) is tempting! However, the argument doesn't state that we should or should not follow the example of other industrialized countries. Instead, it makes an argument about what role the 3-month summer vacation tradition should play in our consideration of how to determine the best vacation policy. For all we know, the author could go on to say that our economic need doesn't call for a 3-month vacation, but a 4-month one! We have no idea what the author thinks is the true economic need, or how he or she thinks we should best address it in our vacation policy.
I hope that clears it up!