PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby sighsigh » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:17 pm

About 1950s popular music.

I am stuck between (C) and (D). Both seem possible.

However, I am making a distinction between 'musicians' and 'professional musicians' (i.e. not all musicians are professional). Which seems reasonable to infer. If you don't make that distinction, and assume all musicians are professional, then I can exclude (C) and arrive at (D), which is the correct answer. Is that supposed to be the correct thought process to take?

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:32 pm

sighsigh wrote:About 1950s popular music.

I am stuck between (C) and (D). Both seem possible.

However, I am making a distinction between 'musicians' and 'professional musicians' (i.e. not all musicians are professional). Which seems reasonable to infer. If you don't make that distinction, and assume all musicians are professional, then I can exclude (C) and arrive at (D), which is the correct answer. Is that supposed to be the correct thought process to take?

C says the opposite what the argument says go back and check w the lines,it says total number of musicians perr band has decreased ,C says increased ,D logically follows from the argument.

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby mindarmed » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:33 pm

sighsigh wrote:About 1950s popular music.

I am stuck between (C) and (D). Both seem possible.

However, I am making a distinction between 'musicians' and 'professional musicians' (i.e. not all musicians are professional). Which seems reasonable to infer. If you don't make that distinction, and assume all musicians are professional, then I can exclude (C) and arrive at (D), which is the correct answer. Is that supposed to be the correct thought process to take?


A - No information about # of amateur musicians
B - Never established capabilities of professional musicians
C - This could be true
E - Possible that all professional musicians play in exactly one band or no band at all

HTH

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:47 pm

armedwithamind wrote:
sighsigh wrote:About 1950s popular music.

I am stuck between (C) and (D). Both seem possible.

However, I am making a distinction between 'musicians' and 'professional musicians' (i.e. not all musicians are professional). Which seems reasonable to infer. If you don't make that distinction, and assume all musicians are professional, then I can exclude (C) and arrive at (D), which is the correct answer. Is that supposed to be the correct thought process to take?


A - No information about # of amateur musicians
B - Never established capabilities of professional musicians
C - This could be true
E - Possible that all professional musicians play in exactly one band or no band at all

HTH

Quote from the argument
the average number of musicians per band has decreased.
C says The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.
so C is the opposite of the argument.
Last edited by natashka85 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby sighsigh » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:50 pm

natashka85 wrote:C is the opposite of the argument here are the lines quoted from the argument
Nevertheless, electrification has increased rather than decreased the overall number of musicians who play popular music professionally.
C the answer choice says
The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.


I don't see how it is the opposite.

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

They are not direct opposites. There is a distinction being made between musicians and professional musicians.

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:53 pm

sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:C is the opposite of the argument here are the lines quoted from the argument
Nevertheless, electrification has increased rather than decreased the overall number of musicians who play popular music professionally.
C the answer choice says
The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.


I don't see how it is the opposite.

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

They are not direct opposites. There is a distinction being made between musicians and professional musicians.

Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.

User avatar
CardozoLaw09
Posts: 1745
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby CardozoLaw09 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:57 pm

sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:C is the opposite of the argument here are the lines quoted from the argument
Nevertheless, electrification has increased rather than decreased the overall number of musicians who play popular music professionally.
C the answer choice says
The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.


I don't see how it is the opposite.

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has increased (FTFY) decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

They are not direct opposites. There is a distinction being made between musicians and professional musicians.


They're not opposites, they're actually in agreement with one another. I think C) is wrong because it's less plausible that the number of musicians in some bands increased having an effect on the average than it is that the total number of bands increased given the information in the stim. The total number of bands increasing can have an impact on the average more significantly than would having only "some" bands having an increase in the number of musicians.

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:00 pm

CardozoLaw09 wrote:
sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:C is the opposite of the argument here are the lines quoted from the argument
Nevertheless, electrification has increased rather than decreased the overall number of musicians who play popular music professionally.
C the answer choice says
The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.


I don't see how it is the opposite.

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has increased (FTFY) decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

They are not direct opposites. There is a distinction being made between musicians and professional musicians.


They're not opposites, they're actually in agreement with one another. I think C) is wrong because it's less plausible that the number of musicians in some bands increased having an effect on the average than it is that the total number of bands increased given the information in the stim. The total number of bands increasing can have an impact on the average more significantly than would having only "some" bands having an increase in the number of musicians.[/quote
well here are the lines directly the one before was wrong,

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:01 pm

natashka85 wrote:
CardozoLaw09 wrote:
sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:C is the opposite of the argument here are the lines quoted from the argument
Nevertheless, electrification has increased rather than decreased the overall number of musicians who play popular music professionally.
C the answer choice says
The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.


I don't see how it is the opposite.

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has increased (FTFY) decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

They are not direct opposites. There is a distinction being made between musicians and professional musicians.


They're not opposites, they're actually in agreement with one another. I think C) is wrong because it's less plausible that the number of musicians in some bands increased having an effect on the average than it is that the total number of bands increased given the information in the stim. The total number of bands increasing can have an impact on the average more significantly than would having only "some" bands having an increase in the number of musicians.[/quote
well here are the lines directly the one before was wrong,





The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:02 pm

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:05 pm

And if u cant see the difference between the argument and the answer choice ,maybe u should go back and practice must betrue questions ,that will help u a lot.

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby sighsigh » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:07 pm

natashka85 wrote:Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.


You can't assume that. If it is said that the number of musicians is decreasing, you can't assume that this decrease includes professional musicians. Maybe the decrease is made solely from non-professional musicians.

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby sighsigh » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:09 pm

CardozoLaw09 wrote:
sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:C is the opposite of the argument here are the lines quoted from the argument
Nevertheless, electrification has increased rather than decreased the overall number of musicians who play popular music professionally.
C the answer choice says
The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.


I don't see how it is the opposite.

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has increased (FTFY) decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

They are not direct opposites. There is a distinction being made between musicians and professional musicians.


They're not opposites, they're actually in agreement with one another. I think C) is wrong because it's less plausible that the number of musicians in some bands increased having an effect on the average than it is that the total number of bands increased given the information in the stim. The total number of bands increasing can have an impact on the average more significantly than would having only "some" bands having an increase in the number of musicians.


Yep, to me also they're compatibile. I get your justification but it doesn't seem to be strong enough to pick one answer choice over the other.

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:10 pm

sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.


You can't assume that. If it is said that the number of musicians is decreasing, you can't assume that this decrease includes professional musicians. Maybe the decrease is made solely from non-professional musicians.

Whatever is true about musicians is true about professional musicians ,cause the word musicians includes professional musicians

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby sighsigh » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:14 pm

natashka85 wrote:
sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.


You can't assume that. If it is said that the number of musicians is decreasing, you can't assume that this decrease includes professional musicians. Maybe the decrease is made solely from non-professional musicians.

Whatever is true about musicians is true about professional musicians ,cause the word musicians includes professional musicians


That is simply not true. If I have a room with 5 white cats and 5 black cats and I say 'the number of cats in the room decreased,' that does not tell me anything about how many cats of each color decreased, despite the fact that the word 'cat' includes both 'white cat' and 'black cat.'

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:57 pm

sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:
sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.


You can't assume that. If it is said that the number of musicians is decreasing, you can't assume that this decrease includes professional musicians. Maybe the decrease is made solely from non-professional musicians.

Whatever is true about musicians is true about professional musicians ,cause the word musicians includes professional musicians


That is simply not true. If I have a room with 5 white cats and 5 black cats and I say 'the number of cats in the room decreased,' that does not tell me anything about how many cats of each color decreased, despite the fact that the word 'cat' includes both 'white cat' and 'black cat.'

yea but whatever u say about cats in general that also is true about white and black cats ,cause they are cats.

User avatar
CardozoLaw09
Posts: 1745
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby CardozoLaw09 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:21 pm

natashka85 wrote:yea but whatever u say about cats in general that also is true about white and black cats ,cause they are cats.


What :?

If ONE white cat is removed from the room then the number of cats has decreased but that has no effect on the number of black cats since there remains 5 black cats in the room. Similarly, if the number of musicians in general have increased then unless you have specific information about whether the increase was a result of an increase in professional musicians, then you CANNOT make the generalization that the number of professional musicians has also increased. The number of musicians increasing could be due to the fact that there are now more amateur musicians.

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:26 am

CardozoLaw09 wrote:
natashka85 wrote:yea but whatever u say about cats in general that also is true about white and black cats ,cause they are cats.


What :?

If ONE white cat is removed from the room then the number of cats has decreased but that has no effect on the number of black cats since there remains 5 black cats in the room. Similarly, if the number of musicians in general have increased then unless you have specific information about whether the increase was a result of an increase in professional musicians, then you CANNOT make the generalization that the number of professional musicians has also increased. The number of musicians increasing could be due to the fact that there are now more amateur musicians.

Whatever your analogy is flawed,i am not gonna argue w u,cause i have no time,i need to work on my score,but i disagree w you,if u say cats are dumb ,that also includes black cats ,so u can say black cats are dumb too.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby 03152016 » Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:34 am

.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Economist Erik
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby Economist Erik » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:48 pm

We must assume that the drop in the average number of band members occurs among professional bands in order for (D) to be correct.

If we assume that the stimulus was referring to the average number of members among both professional and nonprofessional bands, then (D) could actually be false. Here's an example of a scenario that satisfies the conditions in the stimulus but does not involve an increase in the number of professional bands:

BEFORE ELECTRIFICATION: There are 2 amateur bands with 5 members each, and two professional bands with 5 members
each. Thus there are 5 members per band on average.

AFTER ELECTRIFICATION: There are 4 amateur bands with 4 members each, and two professional bands with 6 members each. Thus there are 4.67 members per band on average.

Note that, just as the stimulus says, (i) the average number of members per band decreased (from 5 to 4.67), and (ii) the number of professional musicians increased (from 10 to 12).

But the number of professional bands stayed the same, and thus (D) is false!


Hence we must assume that there was a decrease in the average number of members per professional band in order for (D) to be true.

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3

Postby natashka85 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:20 am

sighsigh wrote:
natashka85 wrote:C is the opposite of the argument here are the lines quoted from the argument
Nevertheless, electrification has increased rather than decreased the overall number of musicians who play popular music professionally.
C the answer choice says
The number of professional musicians in some bands has increased.


I don't see how it is the opposite.

The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."

They are not direct opposites. There is a distinction being made between musicians and professional musicians.

I agree w u,I guess I was burnt thats why I didn't make that distinction.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chipotle85, MSNbot Media and 15 guests