Q6 - Musicologist: Many critics complain

[hyewonkim89]

Is (C) better than (E) because the stimulus states "MANY critics?"

[wgutx08]

because only one single criticism was discussed in the stimulus, so (E) -- MOST-- is totally unwarranted.

[ohthatpatrick]

Here's a quick, "official" explanation

Main Conclusion
Strategy:
1. identify which clause is the conclusion (bracket it if you might forget)
2. pick the answer that is the closest paraphrase to what you bracketed

Tendencies:
The vast majority of Main Conclusion questions either put the conclusion as the first sentence or as a statement of disagreement somewhere in the middle, after a but/yet/however.

In this question, they're giving us the latter pattern.

Many critics say "Handel's arias had too much repeated text".
Yet "you can refute that criticism" <--- conclusion
why?
the repetition serves a function, freeing audiences to focus on music <---- premise

(A) This is the critics' idea, not the musicologist's

(B) Nothing the musicologist said claims that Handel is superior to MOST

(C) This sounds like, "I disagree with the critics". Can we call it a FREQUENT criticism? We'd have to live with "many critics say X" = "X is a frequent criticism". Keep it.

(D) This again sounds like the critics.

(E) This also sounds like, "I disagree with the critics", but this is even stronger than (C). The author is dealing with the "many critics" cited at the beginning, not MOST criticism of Handel.

[daijob]

Here's a quick, "official" explanation

Main Conclusion
Strategy:
1. identify which clause is the conclusion (bracket it if you might forget)
2. pick the answer that is the closest paraphrase to what you bracketed

Tendencies:
The vast majority of Main Conclusion questions either put the conclusion as the first sentence or as a statement of disagreement somewhere in the middle, after a but/yet/however.

In this question, they're giving us the latter pattern.

Many critics say "Handel's arias had too much repeated text".
Yet "you can refute that criticism" <--- conclusion
why?
the repetition serves a function, freeing audiences to focus on music <---- premise

(A) This is the critics' idea, not the musicologist's

(B) Nothing the musicologist said claims that Handel is superior to MOST

(C) This sounds like, "I disagree with the critics". Can we call it a FREQUENT criticism? We'd have to live with "many critics say X" = "X is a frequent criticism". Keep it.

(D) This again sounds like the critics.

(E) This also sounds like, "I disagree with the critics", but this is even stronger than (C). The author is dealing with the "many critics" cited at the beginning, not MOST criticism of Handel.

Hi,

I think I was confused because of the language...it says "refuted by nothing that." Could you explain this gramatically? What does this mean?
(English is not my first language)
I found the languages in LSAT becomes harder to understand, more complex and more hard vocabs especially in hard questions of LR and RC...

[tommywallach]

Hey Daijob,

It's very true. And it won't do you any good for me to explain individual phrases you happen to see on an LSAT question, because you'll never see that specific language again (most of the time). I know it's frustrating to hear, but if you regularly find that the language on the LSAT is confusing, it would behoove you to begin working with an ESL teacher right away. No amount of prep specifically on the LSAT will solve the problem of struggling with vocabulary and/or complex grammatical structure.

-t

[daijob]

I know that, but realisitically I cannot hire ESL teacher now. I just do not understand this phrase and do not have native speaker friends around me so that's why I posted here...
Plus when I was a student in college and took ESL class or in high school they did not teach those stuff neither.
They teach basic grammar, but not those phrases.
I used dictionari, etc etc, but still not sure so I asked here...I did not ask each time I got confused, I try to find it by myself first.
And why can you tell it will not appear again? It might, right?
If we cant understand the meaning, (even we know the logic behind it) it hurts points, so I do not want to leave it...
Sorry this may be annoying to you, but I really need help...

[VickX462]

The argument goes in the following order:
opposing point –– conclusion ––premise

The conclusion is that the criticism that the texts are repeated well beyond what is needed for literal understanding can be refuted.
The premise is that the repetitions serve a vital function.

Let's work wrong-to-right:
Answer (A) is part of the opposing point.
Answer (B) points to the arias' superiority, which is not mentioned in the argument
Answer (C) similar to the conclusion, which points out that a criticism is unwarranted, although "at least one" sounds a little fishy. Defer judgment.
Answer (D) resembles the opposing point.
Answer (E) sounds good. Defer judgment.

That leaves us C and E; they defer in the quantifier––"at least one" vs. "most"
How many criticisms has the musicologist refuted here? One. "Most" in answer E is too broad and we cannot infer from the stimulus. This leaves us answer C. Since the musicologist mentions that "many critics complain," the criticism he refutes could be seen as a frequent one.

Hope it helps.