Q12 - The best jazz singers use their voices much as horn pl

[tommywallach]

PT 65, S4, Q12 (Determine the Function)

(C) is correct.

For determine the function questions, you must always start by finding the conclusion (much like assumption family questions). From there, you can relate the element in question to the conclusion; unless it is the conclusion, it will usually either support or oppose the conclusion.

The conclusion of this argument comes all the way at the end, and is signalled by the word "so": "Jazz consists largely of voicelike horns and hornlike voices." The rest of the argument provides support for this conclusion"”a singer who thought of her voice as a horn, and some horn players who mimic the voice. Lets see if this is enough to get the answer.

(A) Whoops. The first sentence is not the conclusion of the passage.

(B) Same deal. Not the conclusion.

(C) This says it supports the main conclusion, and also some other stuff. Keep it for now.

(D) This says it supports the main conclusion, and some different stuff. Gotta keep it, too.

(E) Uh-oh. This one also says it supports a conclusion.

A simplistic view of the first sentence as just a supporting premise for the conclusion is not enough to get to the answer. Let’s try to parse the details of our three remaining answer choices to continue eliminating.

(C) This says it’s a statement "for which some evidence is provided." Do we get evidence that "jazz singers use their voices much as horn players use their instruments"? Yes! In the next sentence, Billy Holiday is an example of that very point!

(D) This says it’s a statement "for which no evidence is provided." But we already noticed Billie Holiday. This answer is no good.

(E) This says it’s a statement that supports a conclusion that then supports the main conclusion. That sure is confusing! It can help to think about the sentence with Billie Holiday. That sentence is providing support for the first sentence of the passage (some vocalists use their voices like horns), which is in turn supporting the main conclusion of the passage. Actually, (E) would be the correct answer, if we’d been asked about the sentence with Billie Holiday in it. Unfortunately, we weren’t. The first sentence of the passage directly supports the conclusion, not some intermediate conclusion.

[Elizabeth.Naff]

I'd like more clarification about why the conclusion is not the very first statement.

I understand that usually the conclusion appears in the last sentence and "so" is a conclusion indicator but I have seen a number of LSAT questions that have purposely lured you into mistakenly thinking that because there is an indicator or because it appears in the last line, it is the conclusion.

The only reason I chose the right answer is because the second half of answer (A) didn't quite fit. But if it weren't for that I would say that the opening line was the conclusion and the last line was a subsidiary conclusion.

Help, if possible.
Thanks a lot.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

There are some questions that try to lure you into thinking the conclusion is the last sentence with a conclusion indicator like "thus" even though it does not represent the main conclusion. That said, those are predominantly questions that ask you to find the main conclusion of the argument.

This question is an ID Function/Role question. It's less likely that they'll be trying to trick you here. Furthermore, there's nothing in the first sentence to make me think it's the conclusion of the argument. It does not have a conclusion indicator, it's not the sort of claim that would typically be a conclusion (recommendations, predictions, decisions, or hypotheses), it's not the refutation of another position, nor is it an explanation of some observation. None of the typical cues are there to point at the first sentence.

Finally, the last sentence with the language cue come from the first sentence.

Hope that helps!

[tzyc]

The first sentence of the passage directly supports the conclusion, not some intermediate conclusion.

So the first sentence is the intermediate conclusion, and the second one is the premise which supports that, and the last is the final conclusion correct?
I was confused about which one is the intermediate conclusion and which the a premise, or whether both of them are premises which support the conclusion when I did this question...
Even when I used therefore test, I still could not see whether either of the two is intermediate conclusion...
Can't we say the first sentence (of the stimulus) therefore, the second sentence? Because it says "the best singer"...in the first sentence and then "the great" in the second sentence... (Since the best would do smt...and great X would do smt)
Or is it bad because we would assume the best=the great...??

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

You're right, the Therefore Test isn't super useful for differentiating here.

You COULD make the argument you were proposing, in which the premise is "best singers use voice like horn" and therefore "the great BH must have used her voice like a horn".

Notice, though, that in order to make that 2nd idea sound like a conclusion (i.e. an opinion), I had to insert "she must have".

As is, the 2nd sentence reads to me like a fact, so it's hard to consider it a conclusion.

But I think you're right to say you could potentially make 1st support 2nd or vice versa.

This is where LSAT has to give us some language cues so that it's clear what is supporting what.

The last sentence is guaranteed to be a conclusion because of the word 'so'; thus, we should ask ourselves, "Which ideas were supporting the last sentence?"

The last sentence is a generalization about jazz, that singers sound like horns and horns sound like singers.

Because of its broad nature, that last sentence is an umbrella claim under which the rest of the paragraph fits.

The other three sentences are all discussing hornlike voices or voicelike horns.

By contrast, if we said the 1st sentence was the main conclusion, only the 2nd sentence would fit underneath it.

The 3rd would stick out because it's NOT talking about singers who sound like horns. And the 4th would stick out because it's bringing in something about horns sounding like singers.

The main conclusion is a claim that every other claim relates to, in some fashion.

In terms of how to "officially" label this argument, you have:

Main Conc:
Jazz consists largely of voicelike horns and hornlike voices

Prem 1: Horn players achieve distinct sounds by emulating voices
+
Prem 2: The best singers use their voices like horns (for example, BH did so)

We're allowed to call "best singers use their voices like horns" an intermediate conclusion if we want, because there IS some supporting info provided for it.

In terms of (E), if we're asking ourselves, "does 1st support 2nd or does 2nd support 1st?", we can answer that only by knowing that the MAIN conclusion is about "jazz" broadly.

It makes more sense that we would go
Specific jazz singer --> jazz singers generally --> jazz generally
than go
Jazz singers generally --> Specific jazz singer --> jazz generally

Hope this helps.

[krisk743]

I eliminated C because it was assuming Billie Holiday was a jazz singer. How was I supposed to know whether that was the case or not...otherwise I noticed it was somewhat supporting it.