Assertion (A): The less able a child is to do a task the more directions the…
2024
Assertion (A): The less able a child is to do a task the more directions the teachers should give and as the child can do more and more the teacher should help less and less.
Reason (R): Intelligence cannot be accurately measured by calculating IQ.
Choose the correct option.
- A.
Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
- B.
Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
- C.
(A) is true but (R) is false.
- D.
Both (A) and (R) are false.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
Assertion-Reason questions test three independent things: whether the Assertion (A) is true on its own, whether the Reason (R) is true on its own, and — only if both are true — whether R is a valid logical explanation for A. In teaching methodology, "scaffolding" (rooted in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development) means adjusting a teacher's support to the learner's current independent capability: more guidance when a task is hard for the child, progressively less as the child's own competence on that task grows.
Assertion (A) accurately describes this scaffolding principle, so A is true. Reason (R) states that intelligence cannot be accurately measured by calculating IQ — a widely accepted limitation in educational assessment, since an IQ score captures only a narrow set of cognitive skills and does not represent the full range of human ability, so R is also true on its own. However, R explains why IQ measurement is imperfect, not why a teacher's level of support should track a learner's demonstrated ability on a task. The scaffolding principle in A follows from observing the learner's own performance on the task (the Zone of Proximal Development), not from any critique of IQ testing. So R, although true, does not causally account for A.
Claiming R explains A assumes that any two independently true statements — one about instructional support and one about IQ measurement — must be causally linked; a valid explanation requires R to actually account for why A holds, and a critique of IQ measurement does not account for why support should fade as ability grows.
Calling R false confuses "does not causally explain A" with "is not true" — the limitations of IQ as a measure of intelligence are an independently documented fact in educational assessment, regardless of the assertion about scaffolding.
Calling A false rejects a well-established instructional practice — reducing support as a learner's own demonstrated capability grows is exactly what graduated, differentiated instruction (scaffolding) describes.
Both statements hold on their own, but the second does not causally account for the first.