Q14 - Music historian: in the past, radio stations

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Most Strongly Supported

Stimulus Breakdown:
This is rare for a Most Strongly Supported stimulus: we actually have an argument! Conclusion: when the three minute limit on rock songs for radio was lifted, standards for song structure broke down and the music became aimless. Premise: the styles from which rock derived were not well suited to longer songs. We should also note the opposing points here: the critics who think that rock only became artistic when the barriers were lifted, and the musicians themselves who claim that the three minute limit also limited their creativity.

Answer Anticipation:
When a Most Strongly Supported question has an argument in its stimulus, there are two ways the correct answer could go. It could be a more standard correct answer that is a fact one might infer from combining parts of the stimulus, or it could be an answer that is a necessary assumption of the argument. If that seems strange, consider what a necessary assumption really is: something that must be true in order for the argument to make sense. So, if we presume the argument does make sense, then its necessary assumptions should be strongly supported, too. Predictions for standard Most Strongly Supported answer choices are hard to make because the facts can combine in so many different ways. Predictions for Necessary Assumption-style answers are easier because there are fewer options. For this one, we might predict an assumption that links up the styles from which rock derived to rock itself: "if the styles from which a new genre derived aren't well suited to longer pieces, then the new genre won't be either."

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
(A) There's nothing in the stimulus that could support a judgment like this. What is or is not a good creative outlet for whom is outside the scope of our stimulus.

(B) Degree issue alert! That "must" is a red flag. But, we still need to consider the other merits of the answer choice. Borrowing styles seems a bit outside the scope of this argument, and the historian never gives an opinion on whether rock is already artistic, so we can't infer that s/he thinks that it needs to do anything in order to become artistic.

(C) Irrelevant comparison! What's discipline got to do with anything?

(D) Yep. This sounds good. It's got a nice soft degree ("sometimes") and it aligns with the historian's opinion that rock got aimless when the commercial barriers were lifted. Presuming that aimlessness isn't what we're after, we can safely infer that the three minute limit could be a blessing rather than a curse.

(E) Ranking language is a red flag in Inference family questions because most stimuli just don't support that kind of judgment. This is no exception. Furthermore, how artists think of themselves is outside the scope of this argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
For Most Strongly Supported questions, beware answer choices with extreme degree, ranking, and judgments that are beyond the scope of the stimulus. When you have an argument in the stimulus, remember that a necessary assumption of that argument might be the correct answer. It wasn't in this case, but it could have been!

#officialexplanation