Text 1The rapid integration of artificial intelligence tools in educational settings has outpaced comprehensive studies of their pedagogical impact. W...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Text 1
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence tools in educational settings has outpaced comprehensive studies of their pedagogical impact. While proponents tout AI's potential to personalize learning, research on actual classroom outcomes remains limited. Critics argue that relying on AI systems may diminish students' critical thinking skills, as these tools can provide instant answers without requiring students to engage in the intellectual struggle that builds analytical resilience.
Text 2
Concerns about AI potentially undermining student development deserve attention, but the effects of educational technology integration depend heavily on implementation approach. Recent studies from several school districts demonstrate that when AI tools are used to supplement rather than replace traditional instruction, students showed improved analytical reasoning alongside enhanced research efficiency.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the critics mentioned in Text 1?
By agreeing that the risk described by critics is valid but emphasizing that proper implementation can prevent the negative outcome they predict
By conceding that the concerns raised by critics are justified while arguing that the benefits of AI integration outweigh the potential drawbacks
By challenging the critics' fundamental premise but acknowledging that the long-term effects of AI in education remain uncertain
By dismissing the critics' concerns as unfounded while pointing to evidence that AI tools consistently improve student performance
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'The rapid integration of artificial intelligence tools in educational settings has outpaced comprehensive studies of their pedagogical impact.' |
|
| 'While proponents tout AI's potential to personalize learning, research on actual classroom outcomes remains limited.' |
|
| 'Critics argue that relying on AI systems may diminish students' critical thinking skills, as these tools can provide instant answers without requiring students to engage in the intellectual struggle that builds analytical resilience.' |
|
| 'Concerns about AI potentially undermining student development deserve attention, but the effects of educational technology integration depend heavily on implementation approach.' |
|
| 'Recent studies from several school districts demonstrate that when AI tools are used to supplement rather than replace traditional instruction, students showed improved analytical reasoning alongside enhanced research efficiency.' |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: The two texts present different perspectives on AI in education, with Text 1 highlighting critics' concerns about potential harm and Text 2 arguing that proper implementation can address those concerns.
Argument Flow: Text 1 establishes the rapid adoption of AI in schools and presents critics' concerns about diminished critical thinking. Text 2 responds by validating those concerns but providing evidence that thoughtful implementation can actually improve student outcomes.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? How the author of Text 2 would respond to the critics mentioned in Text 1
What type of answer do we need? The likely reaction or response strategy Text 2's author would use when addressing Text 1's critics
Any limiting keywords? 'Based on the texts' means we need to stick to what's actually written, and 'most likely' means we need the response that best matches Text 2's established tone and approach
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Looking at Text 2's approach, the author doesn't dismiss the critics from Text 1
- Instead, the author says their 'concerns deserve attention,' which shows respect for their viewpoint
- However, Text 2 then pivots to argue that 'effects depend heavily on implementation approach' and provides evidence that proper implementation actually improves analytical reasoning
- The right answer should show Text 2's author acknowledging the validity of critics' concerns while emphasizing that proper implementation can prevent the negative outcomes they predict
By agreeing that the risk described by critics is valid but emphasizing that proper implementation can prevent the negative outcome they predict
✓ Correct
- Matches Text 2's exact approach: 'concerns deserve attention' shows the author agrees the risk is valid
- The phrase 'proper implementation can prevent the negative outcome' aligns perfectly with Text 2's evidence that supplementing instruction leads to improved analytical reasoning
- This directly addresses critics' worry about diminished critical thinking by showing it can be avoided
By conceding that the concerns raised by critics are justified while arguing that the benefits of AI integration outweigh the potential drawbacks
✗ Incorrect
- Text 2 doesn't argue that benefits outweigh drawbacks
- Instead, Text 2 argues the drawbacks can be prevented entirely through proper implementation
- This choice misses Text 2's core message about implementation being key
By challenging the critics' fundamental premise but acknowledging that the long-term effects of AI in education remain uncertain
✗ Incorrect
- Text 2 doesn't challenge critics' fundamental premise—it actually validates their concerns
- Text 2 also doesn't mention uncertainty about long-term effects
- Students might choose this because Text 2 does present evidence, but they'd miss that the author acknowledges rather than challenges the critics' concerns
By dismissing the critics' concerns as unfounded while pointing to evidence that AI tools consistently improve student performance
✗ Incorrect
- Text 2 explicitly states that concerns 'deserve attention'—the opposite of dismissing them as unfounded
- While Text 2 does provide evidence of improvement, it's specifically about proper implementation, not consistent improvement regardless of approach