The original idea of schools, which i do not believe is yet abandoned as worthless or out of date, was that children had not yet reached the point of experience and wisdom which enabled them to teach all their elders but one may, i hope , be permitted to harbor the thought that taxpayers send their children to school on the premise that, at their age, they need to learn, not teach. what is the reasoning of this argument? (apex) (a)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. b)that children are sent to school to learn, not teach, so it is the job of the teachers to tell students what they should think about the war in vietnam. c)that students are sent to school to learn, not teach, so the students in this case were in the wrong by trying to teach others something wearing armbands. d)that students are sent to school to learn from the experience of their teachers, so the teachers should have worn armbands to teach the students something.