#22 - Theorist: Hatred and anger, grief and dispair

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method- Argument Part. The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[lday4]

Can you explain how the claim offers only partial support for the conclusion? I identified the conclusion as "So even if the meaning of a given piece...core of a given emotion." If that is the conclusion is the claim only partially supporting it because the conclusion is conditional? I picked D, but I suppose the music is merely sound is not a generalization?

Thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi lday,

You're right on with why D is incorrect. In answer to your first question, "music is merely sound" would not be enough, by itself, to support the conclusion. Instead, we need the other premises - first, the first sentence, and second, the portion coming after "therefore." If I said, "Music is merely sound. So we can conclude that music produces only the core of a given emotion," you would be totally lost; that isn't enough support to draw the conclusion without the rest.

[sgd2114]

Hi,

I chose (C), but spent too much time going back and forth between (C) and (D). How is "music is merely a sound" not a generalization? Is it because the statement is made generally, but not derived from a specific set of cases? How would LSAT use a generalization?

Thank you! Appreciate the help.

[James Finch]

Hi SDG,

Correct, a generalization on the LSAT would use a claim about a group to link it to a subgroup, i.e. "Puppies are cute, since all dogs are cute (generalization) and puppies are dogs." The other issue with (D) is that it isn't claimed to be necessary to the conclusion, although it does make the conclusion logically valid, via an intermediate conclusion.

Hope this helps!

[okjoannawow]

Hi,

I’m wondering why answer choice B is incorrect. If the conclusion begins at “So even..” would “music is merely a sound” not be a portion of that conclusion, seeing as it’s in the same sentence?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

That's an easy mistake to make, okjoannawow, but being in the same sentence as the conclusion doesn't mean that it is part of that conclusion. We still can break the sentence down into its component parts, pulling out phrases that are premises, others that are intermediate conclusions, and still others that are main conclusions. To illustrate this, here's another argument with all of those in just one sentence:

I live in Los Angeles, and people here root for the local teams, so they must root for the Dodgers, so I must also root for them.

Here's the structure of the argument:

Premise: People in L.A. root for local teams
Intermediate Conclusion: People here root for the Dodgers
Premise: I live in L.A.
Main Conclusion: I root for the Dodgers

The claim that I live here isn't part of the conclusion, but just a premise that partially supports that conclusion. It doesn't matter that it's in the same sentence in the conclusion, because we can still break it down into its component parts.

Full disclosure here: I may live in L.A. now, but I am now and always will be a Red Sox fan.

[lanereuden]

So if we were to breakdown things for this question:

Premise:
Grief and despair, etc. are pairs of emotions that consist of same core feeling and distinguished by social conditions that cause them and behavior they in turn cause.
Intermediate conclusion: music produces core of given emotion
Premise 2:
Music is merely sound
Final conclusion:
Music creates neither social conditions nor human behavior
What role is played by the statement: “even if the meaning of a given piece of music is the emotion it elicits? “ is this a premise too?

[Vy5]

My issue here was between B and C. For answer choice C, it describes the segment as a claim however would a claim not, by definition, be supported by a premise?

I see in the question stem that it describes this segment as a claim but I did not pay attention to that or see it as meaningfully relevant because I recognized it as a role questions.

As it stands, I do not like answer B either because it seems as though this segment is providing support for the intermediate conclusion preceding this. However, I just cannot get past how this can be described as a claim when it is functioning as support and lacks any support itself.

[Adam Tyson]

A claim is just a statement, Vy5, so a claim can be a premise or a conclusion or both or neither. It just means "something that someone said and they believe is true." Premises are often described as claims that are used to support other claims, and conclusions can be described as claims that are allegedly supported by other claims.

If we start as our prephrase here "that statement was a premise and nothing else," then answer C should look perfect!

And back to your question on this one, lanereuden, I think you have the premises and conclusions a bit mixed up. The statement "music is merely sound" is a premise, which supports the intermediate conclusion that music does not create social conditions or human behavior. If we then add to that the premise that distinguishing certain emotions requires referring to social conditions and behavior, we get the main conclusion that the author seeks to establish, which is that if the meaning of a piece of music is an emotion, it can only mean that it produces the core of that emotion. The phrase you asked about is a portion of that conditional conclusion (which may be what they meant by answer B).