Question

I disagree with the argument that tutoring can take place during “non-essential” classes. To begin with, I strongly resist the label “non-essential.” Education is more than the ability to pass a standardized test; indeed, it is more than the acquisition of knowledge. I believe that education is deeply, intimately concerned with the development of the human person. Students who do not experience the thrill of performing in front of a live audience, the joy of creating poetry, or the satisfaction of strenuous athletic training have been poorly served by the public school system.

According to the editorial, what would happen if schools took away non-essential classes?
A) Students would lose their break from the boredom of traditional classes.
B) Students would save both the district and taxpayers a lot of money.
C) Students would miss out on receiving a well-rounded education.
D) Students would perform more poorly on standardized tests.

Answer 1

C) Students would miss out on receiving a well-rounded education.

Step-by-step explanation:

The article states that performing music, creating poetry, or physically exerting oneself is just as valuable as the activities done in the tested courses. By schooling students in not only the academic subjects but also music, art, and physical fitness, student would receive a well-rounded education.

Answer 2

C) Students would miss out on receiving well-rounded education.

It's C because the editorial is talking about how those classes are still classes and we need them for the full effect of being "educated".