SPOILER AAMC FL 1 CARS 31

[nostra_damus]

Can somebody please explain the reasoning for this? I understand from reading this over and over again that the observed effect = academic improvement and the explanation = teachers have methods suitable for teaching small classes.

I can kind of understand why C is wrong: the observed effect is for SMALL CLASSES, so this answer is irrelevant because it talks about any class size.

I can't, however, now grasp why D would weaken the explanation. The explanation is that teachers have methods suitable for teaching small classes and thus they do well. This answer is saying that these teachers use methods well suited to small classes, yet the achievement levels are still low. Isn't that weakening? Is it because it's not directly weakening the "explanation" (that it's because teachers use well suited methods) and instead using this explanation to give a wrong observation?

I feel like I'm overthinking this and spending more time trying to analyze AAMC explanations rather than the passage itself now haha

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[spcspc]

I think A is just a better answer than D.
I narrowed it down to A and D as well. I thought that A was a more direct and complete response to the question. One of the main points in the passage is that the improvements seen in the early grades are because teachers are more likely to use techniques that are good for small classes. Therefore, the strongest evidence against this would be if it was found that the techniques teachers use WAS NOT the reason for the improvements seen in the early grades.

D says that achievement is low even when using those techniques. If the author is correct, we should expect higher level of achievement so D does kind of weaken it. But it just says academic achievement is low. It may have gone from really low to just low. It doesn't necessarily have to go from low level to high.

I thought D was more ambigous and A directly challenges the author's point.

I don't know if this helped..

edit: also I thought C was wrong because it says that when teachers used more personal interactions, academic improvement increased. The author's point in the passage is that hands-on learning and personal interactions are techniques that work well in small classrooms and explain why improvements are seen in early years. So C doesn't really weaken it.