Q7 - Social critic: The whole debate

[yej.arin.choi]

Hello,

I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind this answer.
It states that I need to pick an answer that "is most strongly supported" by the passage, but I can hardly understand why (D) "If rock musicians voluntarily sensor their violent lyrics, this may help to reduce violence in society".

I guess I got caught up in understanding the statement: "Granted, violence predates the rise in popularity of such music". Doesn't this mean violence exists BEFORE the rise in popularity of music i.e. the lyrics of these songs are not causing the increase in violence?
I put (C) as an answer because of this statement...

Thanks for the help!

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting, yej.arin.choi. This inference question is a bit tricky. The author makes two separate claims.

1) Legally, singers can say what they want.

2) Still, they shouldn't say some things because they might affect the way people see and act.

The author gives a sort of opposing point while she writes about the second claim. That's the sentence that says "Granted, violence predates the rise in popularity of such music." Of course this is true in general (violence has been happening forever). But the author is only mentioning this as an opposing point. The author still tells us that lyrics have the power to affect the way we see and act today.

(D) gives us exactly that. The author is at least implying that if rock musicians would voluntarily (not by law) avoid certain violent lyrics, people might be less violent in their actions.

Wrong answers:

(A) refers to legality. But the author said that "very little" that rock musicians say is illegal.

(B) is back to the question of legality. But the author wants musicians to voluntarily ("ought to") decide not to say certain things.

(C) is tempting if you focus on the opposing point. But the last sentence makes it clear that the author thinks words do impact our actions. The fact that violence as a general concept predates the music does not mean that the lyrics won't affect our actions today.

(E) is too strong. Much of the violence? What about poverty, lack of education, violent films, video games, availability of guns, etc.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[jh2352]

Just a helpful hint. On these inference questions 3 of the five answer choices are typically in far left field and are easy to eliminate. Also, on inference questions we prefer vague or weak language.

C. This answer choice says Violent rock song lyrics do NOT incite violence, they merely reflect the violence in society. (this is a very strong statement)

D on the other hand says... If rock musicians voluntarily censor their violent lyrics, this MAY help to reduce violence in society.

I suggest that when reading the argument, box off words such as most, only, such as, many and assess what directly follows these words. DO NOT try to PREDICT AN ANSWER.

Attack answer choices with Strong Language!!

[lsat2016]

Thanks for posting, yej.arin.choi. This inference question is a bit tricky. The author makes two separate claims.

1) Legally, singers can say what they want.

2) Still, they shouldn't say some things because they might affect the way people see and act.

The author gives a sort of opposing point while she writes about the second claim. That's the sentence that says "Granted, violence predates the rise in popularity of such music." Of course this is true in general (violence has been happening forever). But the author is only mentioning this as an opposing point. The author still tells us that lyrics have the power to affect the way we see and act today.

(D) gives us exactly that. The author is at least implying that if rock musicians would voluntarily (not by law) avoid certain violent lyrics, people might be less violent in their actions.

Wrong answers:

(A) refers to legality. But the author said that "very little" that rock musicians say is illegal.

(B) is back to the question of legality. But the author wants musicians to voluntarily ("ought to") decide not to say certain things.

(C) is tempting if you focus on the opposing point. But the last sentence makes it clear that the author thinks words do impact our actions. The fact that violence as a general concept predates the music does not mean that the lyrics won't affect our actions today.

(E) is too strong. Much of the violence? What about poverty, lack of education, violent films, video games, availability of guns, etc.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

Hi,
I eliminated E since it says "production" of rock music, while the stimulus was more referring to the "performance". Would that be a valid reason to eliminate it? Also,