LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8205
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#24383
Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)


Edwina argues that we should hear Mozart as he intended it, and that he intended it as he heard it. Since Mozart heard his music performed by 18th century instruments, Edwina concludes that so should we.

Alberto points out that just because Mozart heard his music performed by 18th century instruments does not mean that he ever heard his music played as he intended it, because Mozart wrote at a time when the performer was expected to interpret and modify the composition.

Alberto contests the idea that what Mozart heard played was what he intended. Alberto does not directly attack Edwina’s conclusion; instead, he focuses on her questionable premise that what Mozart heard played was what he intended. You are asked to identify Alberto’s method of reasoning, so you should focus on the fact that he attacks one of Edwina’s premises.

Answer choice (A): Alberto does not appeal to any academic authority, so this choice is wrong.

Answer choice (B): Alberto’s attack was based on the possibility that music in Mozart’s time was too subject to interpretation for one to know Mozart’s intent on the basis of how Mozart would have heard his own music. Alberto does not discuss the importance of creativity to the audience.

Answer choice (C): Alberto merely attacks Edwina’s premise without even necessarily claiming that her end conclusion that Mozart’s music should be performed on 18th century instruments is incorrect, so you cannot be sure that Alberto argues for another particular view.

Answer choice (D): Alberto attacks Edwina’s premises rather than her logic, so this choice is incorrect. Alberto could have attacked Edwina’s logic, but he chooses to deal instead with her questionable, but stated, premise that Mozart’s intent was indicated by how he heard the music. Remember, logic references the structure and method, not the actual information and basic assertions.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.
Alberto gives us reason to doubt Edwina’s stated premise that how Mozart heard his music indicates his intent.
 andriana.caban
  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: Jun 23, 2017
|
#74214
Hi!

I'm not sure I quite understand why (E) is correct over (D). Originally, I thought the correct answer choice would be linked to Edwina's assumption that even Mozart heard his music as intended. I immediately narrowed it down to (E) and (D) and was confused.

I thought (E) was incorrect because "false" is such a strong word. At the very least, I thought that Alberto's argument would give reason to doubt Edwina's. Thus, I chose (D). I assumed "logic of her argument" meant that Alberto was attacking one of her premise(s). By attacking her premise, he then proved that her conclusion doesn't follow. If Mozart didn't hear his music as he intended it, then it doesn't follow that we should hear it on 18th century instruments. Maybe we don't have to.

Can anyone help out?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3916
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#74349
The problem with answer D here is that Alberto never suggests that Edwina's premises do not support her conclusion. The attack is based on the premises themselves, or as you put it, the assumptions underlying those premises. It's not "your conclusion doesn't follow from that evidence," but rather "your evidence is not valid." It's not "we don't need to listen to his music on those instruments" but is instead "he may not have heard it that way himself."

I see your concern about the strong language in answer E, but look at how it is presented: "a reason to believe" that it is false really isn't that strong, and just means there is some evidence against it. If it had said that she proved a premise was false, THAT would be too strong an answer, but the language here is just the language of weakening and doesn't go too far.
User avatar
 ashpine17
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: Apr 06, 2021
|
#87889
How is the final bit of Alberto's argument relevant?

"After all, Mozart etc..."

Does it mean that Mozart may have modified the written score during performances in ways he did not originally intend since he was expected to as a performer?
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#88037
Ash,

Alberto's second sentence is giving a specific reason to think that Mozart's intent in his compositions might have been different from what he heard when his compositions were actually performed. Edwina thought those things were identical: "exactly as he intended it to be heard; that is, exactly as he heard it." Alberto's first sentence questions whether they are identical, but gives no reason for thinking they wouldn't be. His second sentence provides a specific reason they might not have been identical.

Mozart was not the performer, but the composer, so he did not modify his own works. Those performing his works might have modified them in their performances.

Robert Carroll
User avatar
 ashpine17
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: Apr 06, 2021
|
#88060
So if performers were expected to modify works, how does that play into the whole Mozart didn't necessarily hear his works as he intended them to be played?
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#88069
Ash,

The performers performing Mozart's works when he was alive would have modified them, if what Alberto is saying is true.

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.