Q2

[sissixz]

through POE, I crossed out ABC, and hesitated on D and E.

I didn't choose E becuz the word "musicians" which I cannot find a trace in the passage.

In paragraph 1, the author just mentioned "musicologists", I cann't see why these people also counts as musicians.

So I chose D, and it appears equal to the first sentence in paragraph 2.

So why is still E being the right one?

Somebody help me!!! Thanks!!!

[noah]

We're asked to identify an inference. (E) is inferrable since we learn in lines 8-10 that "much of this repertory has more or less vanished from our historical consciousness" - and there's no reason to not include musicians within the group that participates in our historical consciousness.

(A) is unsupported - we learn that his music is familiar enough (lines 11-12), but we learn in paragraph three that there isn't much of a typical style in this "school." If the "school" is not unified stylistically, how can we infer that John Field typifies it? One astute student below pointed out that Field is indirectly referred to as a leading representative of the movement (line 14), but being a movement's leading representative does not require that you typify a movement's style. It might mean simply that you're well-known.

(B) is unsupported - why not the sonatas?

(C) is unsupported - and quite extreme!

(D) is also unsupported. We learn that the book is new, but not that it's the newest.

[sissixz]

Much thanks for the clear explanation！

Now I see my weak reading problem.

[mxl392]

I picked D instead of E because of the "familiar enough" in line 12. Doesn't the fact that the music is "familiar enough" mean that E is wrong?

[noah]

I picked D instead of E because of the "familiar enough" in line 12. Doesn't the fact that the music is "familiar enough" mean that E is wrong?

(E) only states that "much of the school" is unknown - it's not a problem if a few folks from the school are well known.

Make sense?

[ywan1990]

Hi, could anyone explain why (A) is wrong?

What leads to me to this option is that the author mentioned 'the work of other leading representatives, like Johann Baptist Crammer ...'

So I thought from 'other leading representatives', we can infer that 'John Field' must also be a representative. This means that his music typifies the London Pianoforte school style.

[noah]

Hi, could anyone explain why (A) is wrong?

What leads to me to this option is that the author mentioned 'the work of other leading representatives, like Johann Baptist Crammer ...'

So I thought from 'other leading representatives', we can infer that 'John Field' must also be a representative. This means that his music typifies the London Pianoforte school style.

Great question (because you identify what seems to be support for a wrong answer). I went ahead and edited my explanation above to address it. In short, the "school" is not unified stylistically (lines 31-33), so we can't say anyone typifies it. So, "leading" may refer to something different than stylistic leader.

[griffin.811]

We're asked to identify an inference. (E) is inferrable since we learn in lines 8-10 that "much of this repertory has more or less vanished from our historical consciousness" - and there's no reason to not include musicians within the group that participates in our historical consciousness.

This is a little confusing though because just as answer choice A has holes in that J. Field need not "typify" the school to be a leading rep, the sentence "indeed much of this repertory..." seems to be referring to the sentence just before it, which mentions that there is a lack of this music IN SCHOLARLY editions. It is never said that this music is lacking outside these editions. This is also supported by the fact that in ln 21 we are told that Temperly made many of these works available. If this is true, he must have gotten the works from somewhere.

Additionally, how does the fact that this music is limited for musicologists = being limited for musicians? There could very likely be a lack of writing on the topic as seems to be the medium the musicologists are seeking, while there may be an abundance of recording in old recording studios.

Thanks

[noah]

We're asked to identify an inference. (E) is inferrable since we learn in lines 8-10 that "much of this repertory has more or less vanished from our historical consciousness" - and there's no reason to not include musicians within the group that participates in our historical consciousness.

This is a little confusing though because just as answer choice A has holes in that J. Field need not "typify" the school to be a leading rep, the sentence "indeed much of this repertory..." seems to be referring to the sentence just before it, which mentions that there is a lack of this music IN SCHOLARLY editions. It is never said that this music is lacking outside these editions. This is also supported by the fact that in ln 21 we are told that Temperly made many of these works available. If this is true, he must have gotten the works from somewhere.

I like how you're digging into the details here.

The phrase "this repertory" is referring to the larger body of music. The "indeed" indicates we're about to hear an extension of the idea in the sentence before it, i.e., "in fact, we don't even know about this stuff anymore.

As to where Temperley got the music, it might have been in some dusty basement. We definitely learn that the anthology overcomes the "deficiency"--namely that people didn't know about this music.

Additionally, how does the fact that this music is limited for musicologists = being limited for musicians? There could very likely be a lack of writing on the topic as seems to be the medium the musicologists are seeking, while there may be an abundance of recording in old recording studios.

Thanks

Yes, musicologists don't equal musicians, but if "much of the repertory has more or less vanished from our historical consciousness", I think it's safe to say that musicians don't know about a lot of this music.

[KevinC412]

We're asked to identify an inference. (E) is inferrable since we learn in lines 8-10 that "much of this repertory has more or less vanished from our historical consciousness" - and there's no reason to not include musicians within the group that participates in our historical consciousness.

There's no reason TO include musicians within the group that participates in our historical consciousness. It could easily be the case that much of this repertory has vanished from our historical consciousness yet much of the music is well known by musicians. There's no proof that "our"even refers to musicologists, is the author a musicologist himself? It seems more likely that "our" refers to society in general. The next sentence essentially says: granted, these two works are relatively well known (confirmed by question 3). "Relatively well known" sounds more appropriate to be attributable to the layperson, rather than among musicologists. Either way, musicians are not the same as musicologists. The only thing we know is that there is a deficiency of the school's music in scholarly works that musicologists study academically. As the other user said, Temperley obtained the original music from somewhere. Maybe it was in an old dusty basement, but maybe much of the music itself was in the hands of musicians, and Temperley reproduced the whole collection in a scholarly work. We don't know, thus whether or not musicians know of much of the music is unprovable.

Since this is a must be true question, E shouldn't be the answer because of the phrase "even musicians". Similarly, the specification of "nocturnes" in answer A is unprovable and prevents it from definitely being true. In my opinion this is just a terrible question and we should admit as such. LSAC is not perfect.