Q21 - Most opera singers who

[aseel.barghuthi]

Vocal Chords and Young Opera Singers..

I can see why E is right but why is B wrong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a Make an Inference question. We need to find what must be true or what is most likely to be true, based on the information in the stimulus.

We should compare each of the answer choices with the information in the stimulus to determine whether or not it can be substantiated.

(A) is close but not quite. We know that "young opera singers with great vocal power are the most likely to ruin their voices." This claim does not say, however, that young opera singers without great vocal power are unlikely to ruin their voice.
(B) restates a claim that the author disagrees with. So, while you can find this claim in the stimulus, the author does not believe it to be true.
(C) cannot be inferred. The author never makes a recommendation about what opera singers ought to do, so the word "should" in the answer choice is inappropriate.
(D) is out of scope. We are not given information about mature opera singers.
(E) must be true. Combines the first sentence with the fourth sentence. If most opera singers who add demanding roles lose their voices and this is because most young opera singers lack the technical training necessary to avoid straining their vocal chords, then this answer choice must be true.

Does that help clear it up? I can see why answer choice (B) is tempting and the test-writer intentionally made one of the answer choices restate a claim from the stimulus that was challenged by the author. So, just because a claim is made, does not mean that it must be true!

[mrudula_2005]

I did pick E for Q21 but that was basically a product of POE. How can E be be properly inferred though? All the stimulus says it that "most young singers lack the technical training necessary to avoid straining their vocal cords..." - this statement does not necessarily include most young opera singers (the demographic mentioned in answer choice "E". for all we know, the young opera singers could be in the minority who do NOT lack the technical training necessary to avoid straining their vocal cords...

I do realize that line 1 of the stimulus states that "most opera singers who add demanding roles to their repertoires at a young age lose their voices early..." - but how are we to know that this "most" lines up perfectly with the "most young singers" who lack the technical training...? to infer E?

from the fact that most opera singers who add demanding roles to their repertoires at a young age LOSE THEIR VOICES early, how can we say that most young opera singers (that same demographic) STRAIN THEIR VOCAL CORDS? does lose voice early = strain vocal cord? if so, how was I supposed to know that and was any of the stimulus for this inference needed aside from line 1 and line 4?

thanks a ton in advance!

[haeaznboiyoung]

I think you're still able to combine lines 1 and 4 to infer E.

1: Most opera singers who sing demanding roles at a young age lose their voices early.

4: Young singers strain their vocal cords

So it must be that these opera singers that have lost their voices as a result of singing demanding roles at a young age MUST have strained their vocal cords while they were young. Again, because the result of them losing their voices now are a byproduct of what they did when they were young.

[apom22]

I agree with mrudula_2005.

How do you go from a property about most young opera singers. Then state a quality about most young singers and infer that the quality applies to most young opera singers? Is this whats going on here, or is the author implicitly referring to opera singers when he says 'young singers'

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Again, because the result of them losing their voices now are a byproduct of what they did when they were young.

Great work haeznbolyoung...

The reason why the first and fourth can be combined is because we're fitting the fourth sentence into the first - not summing them up. The claim that most young opera singers who sing demanding roles strain their voices is supported by the first sentence that most opera singers who add demanding roles to their repertoires at a young age lose their voices early. The rest of the information goes on to support how that happens. Tracing back the events, "truncated singing career" lines up with "lose their voices early." The truncated singing career is a result of misuse of the vocal cords. "Misuse "refers to "straining."

In a sense we're interpreting the first sentence with substitutions from information in the rest of the stimulus.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that on these questions that ask for the answer choice that is most strongly supported, we need not be able to infer. We simply need to see more evidence for this claim than any other answer choice. it's a lower threshold to satisfy.

w

I agree with mrudula_2005.

How do you go from a property about most young opera singers. Then state a quality about most young singers and infer that the quality applies to most young opera singers?

So be careful with the word "infer." One problem for students is this slight distinction between Inference Questions that ask you to find "what must be true" and those that ask you to find "what is most strongly supported." Most LSAT prep companies group these two variations together and simply point out the difference in class.

Hope that helps!

[apom22]

Good point. Usually when I see the word inference I look for a must be true. this is like a soft must be true question. "most strongly supported"

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Matt!
I don't understand 100% what you mean by B.. We can get that information from the first and second sentence, and I understand that the author, in the next sentence says that these young singers with great vocal power are actually the ones MOST LIKELY to ruin their voices. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the author doesn't agree with the preceding sentences, does it? It could still be the case "some young opera singers ruin their voices while singing demanding roles because their vocal cords have not yet matured" but just that it is MORE LIKELY that young singers with great vocal power to ruin their voices. Does my point make sense? Do you mind clarifying this part about B for me? I don't really get why it is incorrect since it is a "most strongly support" question... and we clearly have support from the first two sentences...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So the author didn't concede the point made in answer choice (B), the author contested it. Notice that the author says that "the real problem" is something other than the idea that the singers' voices have not yet matured.

In #12 the author does make a concession with the words "it is true that", but in this question the author challenges the point with the words "but" at the beginning of the 3rd sentence and "the real problem is" at the beginning of the 4th sentence.

So in #12 from this section the author does concede the point made initially, but in this question the author challenges the initial point.

Hope that helps!

[js_martin01]

Hey guys. A quick question that arose in my analysis of this question. I was under the impression that combining two "most" statements allows us to infer "some", not "most". However, if we are to combine the statements from the first and fourth sentences in which the correct answer derives, should the answer not instead be "some young opera singers who sing demanding roles strain their vocal cords"?

Some clarification would be appreciated!

[etwcho]

hey js_martin01,

I don't think we are combining two "most" statements here.

1st sentence says: Most opera singers WHO add demanding roles @ young age lose their voices early
I saw that as a general fact, instead of a conditional.

4th sentence says: Most young singers -> strain their vocal chords (especially when using full vocal strength, hence demanding role)
This I saw as a conditional

Therefore, we can infer that most young opera singers (singers who happen to be young and singing opera) who sing demanding roles strain their vocal chords.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good point etwcho! In this case we are not combining two "most" statements.

We know that because of the structure. The only time we can combine two "most" statements is when the trigger of both is the same:

A -m-> B
A -m-> C
------------
B <-s-> C

In this case the trigger of the first most statement is "most opera singers who add demanding roles." In the second most statement, the trigger is "most young singers."

These aren't the same and so no combination can be made.

[kyuya]

I thought this one was pretty tough.

The first sentence of this stimulus introduces us to the problem that is being discussed. Ultimately, we will hear two different arguments attempting to explain why most opera singers who add demanding roles to their repertoires at a young age lose their voices early.

"It has been said.." this is a common way on this test that authors subtly let you know they probably do not agree with the statement that follows these words or words like them. As we expect, the sentence following this discredits the view point in the preceding paragraph.

Now we get into what the author believes.. "the real problem is..."

The issue here is that they lack vocal training, and not that their voices have insufficiently matured.

Answers.

(A) If we take the authors opinion that the lack of vocal training is the reason young opera singers hurt their voices, their vocal power would not matter. They could be just as likely to ruin their voices as the singers with great vocal power.

(B) This is directly opposed in the stimulus as I explained earlier. The author believes it is the lack of training that is the issue, not because they have failed to mature.

(C) MANY years of technical training? We don't know this. Length of the training is never discussed, but only that training could help. It adding a bit more detail to the suggested solution than is warranted by the evidence given in the stimulus.

(D) Simply by being mature does not mean that opera singers can sing with undue strain on their vocal cords, As we discussed earlier it is not a matter of maturity, but of technical training. If they are mature but lack training, perhaps they are just as likely to face vocal trauma as a young opera singer.

Okay, so onto the right answer.

(E) If we go back to the sentence starting with "the real problem is..." it suggests to us that most young singers that take on demanding roles lack technical training, and that is why their voices are damaged.

So if we know that MOST young singers are NOT getting technical training that is necessary for taking on demanding roles, and it INEVITABLY leads to a truncated singer career, we know that most opera singers who sing demanding roles strain their vocal cords. If they lack the necessary elements to avoid this issue, they necessarily have to have the issue in this case due to the inevitability.

[ganbayou]

Hi,

So in infer questions, it is like asking the main point of the author? Even though it is stated, if it is against the author's idea, it cannot be a correct answer?
(or is it because this question says most strongly supported, so we have to choose the main idea of the stimulus??)
And "infer" question would be something not stated clearly, and must be true is like we have to choose what is clearly mentioned?
What are the distinctions?

Thank you

[tommywallach]

Infer means "what must be true based on what's stated." It doesn't have to be a conclusion, though it can be. The correct answer has to be something that the passage more or less stated, though the language will always be confusing, to make it more difficult.

Passage says "I have a red balloon."

Correct answer could be:

"Some things are red."

"He has some things."

"He has more things than his friend who has nothing."

"Some balloons are red."

Etc.

-t

[ganbayou]

Hi, thanks for the reply.
But actually I'm still not sure about my other questions...
"Even though it is stated, if it is against the author's idea, it cannot be a correct answer?
(or is it because this question says most strongly supported, so we have to choose the main idea of the stimulus??)"
I'm asking this because I chose B. The explanation says it restates what the author disagree. So if the author disagrees, even it is written in the stimulus, it cannot be a correct answer?

[tommywallach]

Hey Ganbayou,

Yes, the correct answer still has to answer the actual given question. If the question says "What can be inferred from the passage," the correct answer is anything that the passage has stated directly. If the question asks "What can be inferred about XXXXX?" then the correct answer needs to both be stated by the passage and ALSO be specifically addressing the issue.

Be careful not to be looking for universals that can apply to all questions. That isn't the game. The game is about flexibility. I can't say that anything is definitively true about ALL questions, because it would depend on how the question is worded, what the answer choices were, etc.

Hope that makes sense!

-t

[uhdang]

I was struggling with why B is wrong, and I think I found a very simple answer. Since I'm not a music major, I don't know how the "voice" being mature and "vocal cord" being mature are different or should be considered the same. Nevertheless, considering this question asks for direct reference from the stimulus, there is a subtle change in terms I spotted.

while the stimulus claims,
"young opera singers ruin their voices because their voices have not yet matured" ,

B claims, "young opera singers ruin their voice because their vocal cords have not yet matured."

As simple as it sounds, this makes a good argument for why B is wrong. I want to verify this, so please share your thoughts!

[erikwoodward10]

I was struggling with why B is wrong, and I think I found a very simple answer. Since I'm not a music major, I don't know how the "voice" being mature and "vocal cord" being mature are different or should be considered the same. Nevertheless, considering this question asks for direct reference from the stimulus, there is a subtle change in terms I spotted.

while the stimulus claims,
"young opera singers ruin their voices because their voices have not yet matured" ,

B claims, "young opera singers ruin their voice because their vocal cords have not yet matured."

As simple as it sounds, this makes a good argument for why B is wrong. I want to verify this, so please share your thoughts!

I think its fair to infer that these two can be interpreted to be the same thing. IMO B is wrong simply because the author says it is wrong ("the real problem is that...").

[haeeunjee]

I got to (E) through POE but circled it to come back to it, because I wanted to figure out why (E) was also the *right* answer.

I kept thinking this stimulus was about two "most" statements, which we know mostly end up with only "some" conclusions. I now realize this is not a "most"+"most" type of stimulus. The previous posts were helpful but I didn't personally understand completely this until I wrote it all out, and hopefully I'm contributing meaningfully to this long thread, and that someone benefits from my post.

The first statement is "Most O singers who add demanding roles to their reps at a young age lose their voices early." I do see this as a conditional-worthy statement. (O singers who add demanding roles at young age --(Most)--> lose voices early). But that's not key to getting the answer for me. The next sentence is key. "It has been said that this is because..." This means that the author is now introducing the idea of cause/effect behind this unfortunate phenomenon. Of course the first cause that she proposes, is one that she disagrees with (hence why B is NOT strongly supported and thus wrong).

But then she provides another cause: "The real problem is that most young singers lack the tech training to avoid straining vocal cords." This isn't another "most" statement to combine with the first "most" statement. This is the causal explanation given for the first statement.

She, the author, is concerned with explaining a phenomenon, why most O singers lose their voices early, and not concerned with combining two "most" statements. In other words, she's not looking at two separate groups and finding the middle of the Venn diagram. She's looking within ONE specific group that she is concerned with (young O singers with demanding roles) and giving the reason for their tragically short career. You can combine the two "most" statements to be rewritten as "The reason why those young O singers who add demanding roles lose their voice is because they lack the tech training to avoid vocal strain."

That is why we can infer that (E) "Most young O singers who sing demanding roles strain their vocal cords" since this demographic loses their voice "inevitably" because the lack of technical training strains their vocal cords.

Sorry for the long-windedness. TLDR; for me, it wasn't two "most" statements, but a causal explanation for a phenomenon affecting a specific demographic, and we work from the demographic and go from there.