PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3 Forum
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm
PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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.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?
- mindarmed
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
A - No information about # of amateur musicianssighsigh 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?
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
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
Quote from the argumentarmedwithamind wrote:A - No information about # of amateur musicianssighsigh 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?
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
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.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
I don't see how it is the opposite.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.
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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.sighsigh wrote:I don't see how it is the opposite.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.
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.
- CardozoLaw09
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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.sighsigh wrote:I don't see how it is the opposite.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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.[/quoteCardozoLaw09 wrote:sighsigh wrote:I don't see how it is the opposite.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.
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.
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."
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
natashka85 wrote: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.[/quoteCardozoLaw09 wrote:sighsigh wrote:I don't see how it is the opposite.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.
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.
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."
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
The stimulus says "the number of musicians per band has decreased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."
(C) is basically saying "the number of professional musicians per band has increased."
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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.natashka85 wrote:Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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.CardozoLaw09 wrote: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.sighsigh wrote:I don't see how it is the opposite.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.
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.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
Whatever is true about musicians is true about professional musicians ,cause the word musicians includes professional musicianssighsigh wrote: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.natashka85 wrote:Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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 wrote:Whatever is true about musicians is true about professional musicians ,cause the word musicians includes professional musicianssighsigh wrote: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.natashka85 wrote:Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
yea but whatever u say about cats in general that also is true about White and Black cats ,cause they are cats.sighsigh wrote: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 wrote:Whatever is true about musicians is true about professional musicians ,cause the word musicians includes professional musicianssighsigh wrote: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.natashka85 wrote:Well professional musicians are musicians ,so when u say musicians that includes all kinds of musicians including professional.
- CardozoLaw09
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
Whatnatashka85 wrote:yea but whatever u say about cats in general that also is true about white and black cats ,cause they are cats.
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.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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.CardozoLaw09 wrote:Whatnatashka85 wrote:yea but whatever u say about cats in general that also is true about white and black cats ,cause they are cats.
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.
-
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:05 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm
Re: PT#44, S#4 (LR), Q#3
I agree w u,I guess I was burnt thats why I didn't make that distinction.sighsigh wrote:I don't see how it is the opposite.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.
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.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login