After graduating from high school, people rarely multiply fractions or discuss ancient Rome, but they are confronted daily with decisions...

Passage Analysis:

Argument Flow:

The argument presents a clear contradiction between what's useful in real life versus what schools require. It starts by showing home economics is most relevant to daily adult life, then contrasts this with the fact that schools make irrelevant subjects mandatory while making the useful subject optional.

Main Conclusion:

There's no explicit conclusion stated, but the argument strongly implies that home economics should have a more prominent place in the curriculum (likely as a required course rather than an elective).

Logical Structure:

This uses a contradiction structure: Real-world relevance (home economics most useful) + Current school priorities (math/history required, home economics ignored) = Something needs to change in how we structure education priorities.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that would increase belief in the implied conclusion that home economics should be prioritized over math/history in high school curriculum

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific frequency claims (rarely vs daily), curriculum status claims (required vs elective), and participation claims (few students choose it)

Strategy

Since this is a strengthen question, we need to find new information that would make the implied argument stronger. The logical gap here is between 'home economics is more useful in daily life' and 'therefore it should be prioritized in curriculum.' We should look for information that bridges this gap or reinforces the premise that practical daily usefulness should determine curriculum requirements.