#24- Music critic: How well an underground rock group's

[Adam Tyson]

The point that the author is trying to make here is that sales do not indicate success. Their evidence is that high sales could mean they are too trendy, while weak sales could mean they are not competent.

A good Strengthen answer will more powerfully tie the evidence to the conclusion, and to do that it needs to introduce some new information. It looks like it's that new info that is causing you some concern here, goingslow, in that "unsuccessful" seems a little like a new idea. That might be a problem if this was an Assumption or Must Be True question, but it's actually a good thing if you want to make the argument stronger!

So now ask yourself, if it's true that an underground group is unsuccessful if they are incompetent, and they are also unsuccessful if they are too trendy, would that help the claim that their sales won't indicate their success? If you see that they sold well, you wouldn't know if they were successful or if they were just too trendy, and if they did not sell well you wouldn't know if they were successful as an underground group (they avoided being too trendy) or if they were just incompetent. Adding that principle to the argument, you should think to yourself "well now I have no idea what these sales figures are telling me!" That helps to show that sales figures are not a mark of success.

Don't think of that link as being a stretch; think of it as new information which, if true, helps the argument. You don't have to prove that the answer is true; you have to accept that the answer is true, and then determine whether that answer helps the author.

[goingslow]

Thanks a lot, Adam!

[carroll98]

Hi there! I still have a lingering question about (B).

The reason why I eliminated (B) is that it equivocates “not being a mark of a group's success” to “unsuccessful”, which seems like a stretch to me. What do you think?

Thank you so much!

Hello! It seems to me that all this is not a sign of success, since sales can only show the peak of the group's popularity, after which, it can simply disappear from us, unable to withstand what is happening. Because once you establish yourself as an underground band in this industry, you can really slowly but surely move towards success.

[atierney]

Hello!

Yes, just to give a comment on this. We're looking for a statement that supports the conclusion of the argument, which is that measuring sales of records is not a way to determine the group's success as an underground band. B conditions the success on factors other than the sales, and so it is the best answer here, supporting the overall claim. I agree that in some instances, you can use general knowledge to help you find the best answer in any given question, but I wouldn't rely on the general knowledge over the specified context of the question. In other words, use knowledge of logical arguments rather than knowledge of specific subjects to answer the LSAT questions!

Let me know if you have any questions on this.

[queenbee]

Hi

I didn't select (B) because of the "or both" comment. The stimulus said that the underground rock group would be successful if the sales were low (because not trendy), as long as the low sales were not due to incompetency. Based on that, how can you have high sales and be incompetent at the same time? It seem that the needed pattern was low sales and not incompetent.

I selected (D) for that reason. They are not incompetent, but the sales are not high indicating that they are not trendy. I didnt love the answer but i thought it was better than (B). Any chance you can correct my thinking here?
Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Two things can indicate that an underground group is unsuccessful: 1) they are too trendy and therefore not really underground (like, they are just selling out to the mainstream and making money), or 2) they are incompetent (just not good at making whatever music they are trying to make).

High sales could mean they are too trendy and therefore not successful. Low sales could mean they are incompetent.

If they are too trendy, or if they are incompetent, they are not successful. That's answer B.

Could it be both? Perhaps. Maybe they are making awful music - they are incompetent - but it's really popular and selling well (because listeners have bad taste, maybe, and their marketing team did a great job pushing this terrible music on the world). While this might seem to be an unlikely combination (it's not, as far as I'm concerned, because there is, in my opinion, a ton of awful music out there getting a lot of radio play, but that's neither here nor there), it would still indicate that the group is not successful as an underground group, at least in the opinion of this particular music critic. If at least one of those sufficient conditions occurs, the necessary condition occurs. We shouldn't be pushing back against how realistic it is or isn't for either or both of those conditions to occur.

Follow the internal logic of the argument, and don't bring in outside knowledge or opinions into your analysis.

[ashpine17]

i read C as whether or NOT...would that reading have an impact? Because the initial explanation indicated that C was incomplete because it doesn't say what would happen if criteria that many musicians did NOT find desirable (NOT weak sales) were to occur...

[ashpine17]

Realistically I just don't think I would have ever thought to put unsuccessful as the conclusion. Can I interpret the conclusion as the level of sales doesn't necessarily indicate whether or not the group is successful?

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

i read C as whether or NOT...would that reading have an impact? Because the initial explanation indicated that C was incomplete because it doesn't say what would happen if criteria that many musicians did NOT find desirable (NOT weak sales) were to occur...

That reading wouldn't change the problem with answer choice (C). Answer choice (C) seems to weaken the argument. The argument makes much of what many underground musicians find desirable. If that doesn't relate to success, which is what the conclusion is all about...that basically destroys the basis for the conclusion. "Whether or not" would actually just be saying the same thing.

Realistically I just don't think I would have ever thought to put unsuccessful as the conclusion. Can I interpret the conclusion as the level of sales doesn't necessarily indicate whether or not the group is successful?

Your interpretation is correct and is merely a restatement of the conclusion in the first sentence of the stimulus. That seems consistent with what the explanation at the start of this thread said.

Robert Carroll

[jdleggett]

Tell me if my explanation of why B is correct is accurate using the Justify Formula. (Premises + Answer Choice = Conclusion)

(High Sales → Trendy/ Low Sales → Incompetent) + (Answer Choice) = (Sales ≠ Success)

Therefore the Answer Choice must be "Trendy/Incompetent ≠ Success" which is B