Q1 - Pettengill: Bebop jazz musicians showed

[LSAT-Chang]

I don't know why I got question #1 wrong.. it is kind of embarassing, but I still don't seem to get the following:

1. What is Romney's point? I understand Pettengill's point which is that bebop jazz musicians showed their "distaste" for jazz classics by taking great liberties with them -- but I couldn't seem to find any overlap between Pettengill's point and Romney's point.

2. Since I wasn't able to find the overlap.. I just circled (B), because I thought Pettengill would not agree with this as it was a means to show "distaste" and not improvement -- and also thought Romney's last point about how this revolutionary approach to the jazz classics enabled them to discover previously unknown depths in the music would lead him to agree with (B) since discovering previously unknown depths in music could also mean that bebop jazz was improved from the past -- ??

[timmydoeslsat]

This is a disagreement question. I see that you did a good job of choosing an answer choice that you felt one agreed with and one disagreed with. That is a great mental process to go through.

The issue you had here is with the word improvement.

I will show you how improvement is an idea in this stimulus that is not touched on at all. I will first analogize this argument in such a way that you will understand the real stimulus.

Pettengill: Reality TV show directors showed their dislike of TV shows in general because those directors totally went beyond the lines that were drawn in the sand as what is and not acceptable in TV shows.

Romney: Only great things can have their lines in the sand crossed. Reality TV show directors recognized this fact, and their new approach to television has allowed them to discover previously unknown joys of watching television.


You see, Pettengill feels that by changing something, you are showing distaste in it because you are changing it.

Romney is saying that...

Reshape something ---> The thing must be versatile and compelling (good things!)

And that the revolutionists in question, bebop jazz musicians or the reality tv show directors, realize that in order to change something, that thing must have good things about it.

Notice in my analogy, does Pettengill have an opinion of whether the reality tv show is an improvement over TV shows in general? No! We know that Pettengill feels HOW THE GUYS WENT ABOUT IT is in distaste, but as for the result of what they did? We do not know his beliefs on this.

Romney also does not let us know his beliefs of it is an improvement. He says that the new approach led to new depths, which is debatable if that qualifies as an improvement. Nevertheless, that point is void, as we know nothing of Pettengill's view on the subject.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hi Timmy!
Thanks for the GREAT analogy.
So could you go through the answer choices for me? I picked (B), but would love to know how (C) relates to the argument so that one disagress and the other agrees.

This is my thought: Would Pettingill disagree with (C) since he believes that bebop jazz musicians showed their "distaste" for jazz classics in radically reshaping them, and not "appreciation"? But what about Romney? Could you point specifically as to where we get information that he would agree with (C) unlike Pettingill? Is it the fact about "only compelling versatile songs can stand such radical reshaping" thus, he believes that jazz classics is amazing? And he states that bebop musicians "recognized" this = meaning they "appreciated" it and so they took the revolutionary approach? Thus, Pettingill believes they didn't "appreciate it" and that is why these musicians took a radical reshaping, whereas Romney believes they did "appreciate it" and that is why they took the revolutionary approach (i.e. radical reshaping)?

[timmydoeslsat]

Your explanation for (C) is spot on!

The reason that Pettengill would disagree with the idea of bebop jazz musicians showing appreciation by radically reshaping them, is, as you said, Pettengill says that they showed their DISTASTE for the music by conducting this action of reshaping them.

While Romney believes that, by necessity, this action was done for good reasons, not of distaste. It does not explicitly state appreciation in the dialogue between the two, but it is not a large leap to make.

The conditional statement that Romney makes is:

Song can stand radical reshaping ---> Song was compelling and versatile

We have a case of "song can stand radical reshaping."

So, that means we can, by necessity, say that the song was compelling and versatile.

Romney states explicitly that bebop jazz musicians recognized this conditional statement. These guys knew that to have a case where a song can be radically reshaped, the song MUST be compelling and versatile.

The fact that Romney also states that it led to discover new depths in the music can also be universally considered a positive thing. And this effect of the cause of radically reshaping them was positive.

All answer choices:

A) You could argue that both would agree with this.

B) We do not know if Pettengill would agree or disagree with this idea of if it was an improvement. We know that Pettengill feels that this action of reshaping them showed their "distaste" for something.

Imagine Company X produces product A. Another company, Company Z wants to radically redo product A. A commentator states that Company Z shows their distaste of product A by trying to change it so much! Do we know what the commentator thinks about whether this radically new product is an improvement. No!

For Romney, I would personally argue that we can somewhat strongly say that it was an improvement. Of course, we would have to assume that discovering new depths of music is an improvement over something that did not do such a thing, which may be subjective in some eyes. However, we do not even have to care what Romney thinks because of Pettengill's lack of opinion on the matter.

C) Right answer. We know that Pettengill would disagree with the idea that they did it out of appreciation! Far from it, it was distaste! Romney thinks that these bebop guys thought that these jazz classics had good things about them. Basically, Romney is showing us that bebop musicians thought of jazz classics as having the ability TO BE VERSATILE. They recognized this and ended up with new depths in music.

D) Do not know what their opinion is on the idea of something being required to be widely popular. No mention of widely popular.

E) No insight whatsoever from either person on this statement.

[LSAT-Chang]

The conditional statement that Romney makes is:

Song can stand radical reshaping ---> Song was compelling and versatile

We have a case of "song can stand radical reshaping."

So, that means we can, by necessity, say that the song was compelling and versatile.

Thank you SOOOO much for your great explanation! Didn't even catch that one -- I was just too focused on how the first sentence and the second sentence relate to one another, but you are right - the first sentence is dead on with that conditional!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Pettengill says that Bebop jazz musicians showed their distaste for jazz classics by radically reshaping them. Romney says that bebop jazz musicians recognized that only compelling, versatile songs can stand radical revisions.

Correct Answer
Pettengrill would disagree with the claim that bebop jazz musicians showed appreciation for jazz classics by radically reshaping them, while Romney would agree with this claim.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is a claim that both Pettengrill and Romney would probably agree with.
(B) is something that Romney might agree with, but not something that Pettengill addresses.
(D) is out of scope. Neither Pettengill nor Romney address the issue of being widely popular.
(E) is something that both Pettengill and Romney would both probably agree with.