Question

He original idea of schools, which I do not believe is yet abandoned as worthless or out of date, was that children had not yet reached the point of experience and wisdom which enabled them to teach all of their elders . . . but one may, I hope, be permitted to harbor the thought that taxpayers send children to school on the premise that, at their age, they need to learn, not teach.

What is the reasoning in this argument?
A. That children are sent to school to learn from the experience of their teachers, so the teachers should have worn armbands to teach the students something
B. That children are sent to school to learn, not to teach, so it is the job of teachers to tell students what they should think about the war in Vietnam
C. That children are sent to school to learn, not to teach, so the students in this case were in the wrong by trying to "teach" others something by wearing armbands
D. That children are sent to school to learn because they are not experienced enough to form opinions, so the students in this case did not have properly formed opinions about Vietnam

Answer 1

The correct answer is: Option C. That children are sent to school to learn, not to teach, so the students in this case were in the wrong by trying to "teach" others something by wearing armbands.

The text argues the fact that children are able to teach elders by remarking their lack of experience to do so, but it mainly makes emphasis in their "need to learn, not teach." Therefore, it is settled that children should not be allowed to teach while they are still in their learning phase.