2965

[debbie m]

P: All great musicians have rhythm, and Billy has no rhythm.
(A): (Billy should not try to become something if he can't be great.)
(A): (Billy lacks other characteristics shared by great musicians.)
C: Billy should not try to become a musician.

The answer is the first A.

I'm confused because "being great" was not mentioned in either the P or C.

Thank you!

debbie m

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure I understand your question .... "being great" WAS discussed in the Premises.

What can you infer by combining these two ideas:
All great musicians have rhythm, and Billy has no rhythm.

We can infer: "Billy is not a great musician"

What can we infer by combining that inference with the correct assumption:
Billy is not a great musician, and Billy shouldn't try to become something if he can't be great.

We can (kinda) infer: "Billy shouldn't try to be a musician"

=============

The question is not written very well. We can't technically say that Billy never COULD be a great musician. We only know that he currently is not a great musician.

We would really need to tweak the premises to say something like
Being a great musician requires having rhythm, and Billy will never have rhythm.


But the general takeaway from how the question was intended is that when two premises allow you to infer something, infer it!

That inference will be crucial in terms of hearing the gap between the evidence and the conclusion. Let me know if you still have a question here.