***
This Logical Reasoning question is from the October 2004 LSAT.
Let's make a chain of short phrases, as we usually do an arguments questions, so that we can understand its logic and how it progresses (on all but fairly difficult questions, it may not be necessary to actually write this down, once you've had some practice on the test):
Combining failed in the past --> younger ones confused, older ones bored --> combining now works --> older ones stimulated, younger ones learn efficiently
Now, just as if we were doing an assumption question, let's find the jump in the logic, the place where it breaks down and no longer makes sense. Our chain goes from combining ages in the classroom being a failing strategy to being a winning one, from people not being taught at their level to everyone being challenged appropriately. There could be a lot of different reasons why this discrepancy is resolved, so we won't try to pre-phrase anything this time. Let's just look at the answer choices and start eliminating them:
A) Beyond the argument's scope. There's no reason to think that classrooms being larger serves to make the lessons more engaging to mixed-aged students. Greater size is irrelevant and doesn't resolve the discrepancy.
B) This is the opposite of what would resolve the discrepancy. The argument says the education is improving. Older equipment would probably hinder that, and there's no reason to think it would help it.
C) Correct. This would make the lessons more relevant and challenging to a wider age group, since it brings everyone together on something challenging to students of various ages. This resolves the discrepancy.
D) The opposite of what would resolve the discrepancy. Wider age ranges would mean even bigger problems with lessons being too easy for older students and too hard for younger ones, and would provide no resolution.
E) Beyond the argument's scope. There's no real reason to think that this would mean that students of different ages would all be challenged whereas they weren't in the past.
Remember:
1) Make a chain to understand the logic of the argument and find the jump in it, or where it breaks down, on both assumption and discrepancy questions, two very common types of arguments.
2) If there are a lot of possibilities for the answer or you're just not coming up with anything, don't bother trying to make a pre-phrase. The point of it is to save you time, not take up more time, so if it's doing that, ditch it.
3) Watch out for answer choices beyond the argument's scope and choices that are the opposite of what the question calls for or the passage says. This is helpful on both Reading Comprehension and Logical Reasoning questions.
