Q8 - In Malsenia sales of classical

[jyup1982]

Okay, I understand (C) helps bring the conclusion right.
But, for me, (B) also should be assumed to make the conclusion right. Could anyone plz explain what makes (B) wrong?

Thank you so much

[timmydoeslsat]

You are correct that B is a necessary assumption to this argument!

B is the correct answer for #8 on PT 18, S4.

If you negate C you get this...

"The number of classical concerts performed in Malsenia has decreased in response to smaller audiences."

This is tempting because it appears to be bringing an alternative cause that the argument would like to rule out, and have its own cause as the reason that the new classical music converts do not go to the live performances.

However, this does not address the correct cause-effect.

This answer choice is about the number of classical concerts being performed, which is absolutely not necessary whatsoever.

B negated is....

"None of the new buyers have available to them the option of attending the concerts."

Well if those people did not have the option of going, how can the arguer conclude this reason for them not going? The reason is that they are most comfortable with recorded music. Well this is addressing another cause. The possibility that those people never had the chance to even go to the concert.

I would say this is a correlation to causation issue.

[maryadkins]

Just to clarify: Yes, the right answer choice is (B)! (The answer key that lists (C) as the correct answer is incorrect.)

The core is:

new classical music lovers in Malsenia are buying lots of classical records after seeing it on TV, but audiences at live performances are shrinking

-->

new Malsenian classical music lovers are more comfortable with recorded music/have no desire to hear live performances

This argument assumes that the reason they aren't attending concerts is because they have no interest in doing so. (Maybe concert tickets are expensive?) (B) gets at this--if at least some of the fans don't have the option to attend, then it isn't possible that the reason they aren't going is because they have no interest. It's because they don't have a choice.

(A) doesn't present an assumption made by the argument. We're told records are selling well and don't need to know how or why.
(C) is incorrect. The argument doesn't assume or say anything about the number of concerts in Malsenia.
(D) is irrelevant.
(E) presents an answer that might weaken the argument if we were looking to do that, but we're not. We're looking for an assumption the argument makes. It doesn't assume that classical concerts are not limited to the music on recordings.

[jyup1982]

Thank you all. I really appreciate it.

[wizzard880]

I dont understand why D is irrelevant or wrong. I understand that B is right but why is D wrong? The argument says that they have no desire to hear live performances. If you negate D, it says that "the classical records available in Malsenia are for the most part, recordings of actual public concerts." Since sales of these CD's are soaring, that would mean they do have a desire to hear live performances.

Could someone explain this a bit more?

[sumukh09]

The negated version of D doesn't hurt the argument because even if they were recordings of actual public concerts this does nothing to hurt the idea that they have no desire to hear live performances. Actually attending a live performance is distinct from hearing that live performance on a recording.

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a necessary assumption question.

Audiences of classical concerts are shrinking in Malsenia
→
New Malsenian classical music listeners are (1) most comfortable with classical music as recorded music and (2) have no desire to hear live performances

There are a few things I want to point out in this argument that I think are important to note:
(1) The conclusion has two parts and the correct answer could address either one of these two parts: being more comfortable and having no desire.
(2) There is a scope change from the premise to the conclusion. The scope talks about "audiences" in general while the conclusion is about "new Malsenian converts to classical music." Maybe while the audiences are shrinking, the new audiences are composed solely of these new converts?
(3) The most "obvious" gap here is that the argument is assuming that there are no other reasons besides the reasons the author gives. Maybe it has nothing to with comfort or desire. Maybe the tickets are expensive, maybe these new Malsenian converts don't have the ability to go due to many reasons, etc.

With these things in mind, let's move onto the answer choices.

(A) This is talking about "selling well." We don't need to conclude anything about selling well. The premise-conclusion link is about audiences shrinking and thus being more comfortable/having less desire to attend shows. The records actually aren't as important to this as the LSAT would have you believe.

(C) When you get to these answer choices on necessary assumption questions especially, it helps to think about extreme situations. Let's say that the number of classical concerts has decreased (the negation of answer choice C). Let's say there used to be 150 performances a year and now there are only 149 performances a year. Does that mean anything to the argument? In fact, it might even strengthen the argument by giving an example of how there are definitely enough opportunities for these people to go. Whenever the negation has an ability to perhaps strengthen the argument, it is not a necessary assumption. If that wasn't a good enough reason for you to eliminate it, think about the second part of the sentence: "in response to smaller audiences." Does it matter why the number of concerts has decreased? Not really, no.

(D) I actually thought this one was tricky too during review. Let's untangle this one. Think about how this fits into the argument. Well the argument is talking about "new Malsenian converts to classical music." This answer choice is talking about the records available in Malsenia. This is a definite scope issue because maybe these new Malsenian converts only listen to 5% of the records available. Thus, does it matter what 51%+ of the records consist of?

(E) Once again, this talks about the nature of the concerts. This just simply doesn't lead us to strengthen the link between the premise-conclusion.

(B) is the correct answer choice here. If we say that they simply don't have the option of attending, how can conclude that they don't attend due to having no desire?

[AlisaS425]

Hi everyone, I have 2 questions regarding Q8.

1. Can we say that there's an implicit causal argument? I mean, is it safe to suggest that the author claims "because new classical music lovers are most comfortable with classical music as recorded music and have no desire to hear live performances, audiences at classical concerts are shrinking these days"?

2. In the end of the argument, the author claims that new classical music lovers don't have desire to hear live performances. I was tempted by (D), thinking that "recordings of actual public concerts" could be some sort of "hearing live performances". Am I stretching too far from the author's claim?

Hope someone could help clarify! Thanks a lot