Top Law Schools

I understand why (D) is correct.

I just don't understand what A, B, and C have to do with anything and how they are compatible with the stimulus.

As for E... I dunno even know. A,B,C have got me hating the LSAT.

and I looked at the manhattan forums

I still have no idea

I gotcha on this one! Never seen it before but I cracked the code (I think). Give me a second to write it up!

So, first, let's make sure we're on the same page w/r/t our task - four of these choices are going to be somehow 'compatible' with the argument, while one will be 'incompatible'. This might sound like 'must be true'/'must be false', but it's a lot softer than than. 'Compatible' means that it could be true, while 'incompatible' means it's likely not to be true. I tend to think of an 'incompatible' answer as one that is 'most strongly supported to not be true'. So, for 'compatible' answers I'm looking for support that they are at least possible, while for an 'incompatible' answer, I'll be looking for support that it's unlikely to be true.

(A) - Is it possible that African music has had a more powerful impact on the world than European music? Sure! The stimulus simply said that European music "has had ... a strong influence." Just 'strong', not necessarily 'the strongest'. Never even remotely suggests it. This answer is easily possible.

(B) - Is it possible that some other random thing, like military/economic expansion partially explains the influence of the music? Sure! The stimulus said that all the musical internal coherence stuff was just "one reason why", not "the only reason why". Never even remotely suggests it. This answer is easily possible.

(C) - Is it possible that some other area's music (like China) has the same 'original function no longer defines the music' characteristic? Sure! The stimulus is all about this characteristic of European music, but it never says it's ONLY area to have music with that characteristic. Never even remotely suggests it. This answer is totally possible.

(E) - Is it possible that some works of art lose their appeal when they are disconnected from their function? Totally! In fact, the whole stimulus is about the idea that European music is somehow special and unusual in that it did NOT lose it's appeal. The very thing that makes it so special and influential is the fact that it didn't lose it's appeal when disconnected from the original function. If ALL works of art were perfectly appealing even after disconnecting from their original function, then why are we talking about that being a reason why European music has had such a strong influence?

This answer is not only possible, there's a fair bit of support for it.



Now, (D):

• The stimulus tells us that one of the reasons European music is so sophisticated (such a sophisticated achievement) is that it stands alone (is intelligible) even when presented independently of its original function.
  
  The answer choice then says that music that is NOT like this, music that is instead unintelligible when presented independently of its original function tends to be the most sophisticated.

If that's true, and the unintelligible music tends to be the most sophisticated, then it would be really weird to use the fact that a music is INTELLIGIBLE as an explanation for why it is so sophisticated! Imagine if we knew that orchids tended to be among the most expensive flowers. Then I see a flower arrangement that is very inexpensive - it would be very weird to say that one of the reasons it was so inexpensive was because their were orchids in it. That doesn't make any sense if orchids tend to be the most expensive flowers.

This answer choice is theoretically possible, if you twist the language really hard and come up with crazypants exceptions, but it's not very likely. In fact, it's pretty darn unlikely. The stimulus and the answer choice don't seem to be talking about the same universe.

What do you think?

Compatible. That is the word we are concerned with: compatible. I remember seeing something similar in PT30-S2-Q19 (Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot...). In that example, the stem asks about a principle that is "logically consistent...EXCEPT." These two questions are very similar in task.

In this question, we are given the following facts...

• (1) European music has had both (1) a strong influence and (2) status as a "sophisticated achievement" is because the music became an aspect of its style - not its defining force
  (2) In other words, dance music could stand independent of dance - the music depends on nothing but itself

This is not really an argument, just a passage. We somewhat except that in this type of question (looks like a flipped MBT question). So the task is to take this passage and see what is NOT compatible with it.

Now what probably tripped you up (and me the first time I did 30-2-19) is that you probably thinking that being "compatible" means being "supported" or "true" from the information in the passage. In other words, in order to be compatible, you think that it must have been directly talked about in the passage and you can find evidence as to why its supported in the passage. You may think this is like RC, right? That is exactly what I thought to the first time I did a question like this.

However, that is NOT what it means to be compatible. Someone should correct me if I am wrong but here is how I have come to understand this concept of compatibility, consistency, etc: To be compatible/consistent it does NOT have to be supported - it just cannot contradict the passage or argument. Let me give you an example.

• I love ice cream. Therefore, I will marry it.
  
  The argument made above is consistent with each of the following claims EXCEPT:
  (a) Someone who loves ice cream will marry it.
  (b) Most of the United States' population likes bacon
  (c) No one who loves ice cream will marry it.

Now if you understand consistency/compatibility with the way I just described, you probably thought (B) looks like it is not consistent. It is, after all, completely out of scope. You would have probably picked (B) on a test. However, look at (C). We already know that someone loves ice cream and, from that fact, we conclude that someone will marry ice cream. However, doesn't (C) contradict the argument? It is saying that everyone who loves ice cream will not marry it. In other words, IF you love ice cream THEN you will not marry ice cream. This blanket statement contradicts the argument! So (C) contradicts....(B) is out of scope....how can there be two correct answers?!

As you know, there cannot be two correct answers. (C) would actually be correct. Why? Because being out of scope is CONSISTENT with the argument. We know nothing about people's love for bacon from the argument - thus it could very well be consistent with the argument. If we don't know anything about the answer choice - if it seems out of scope - it is probably consistent. What is NOT consistent with the argument? Something that CONTRADICTS the argument. Matt Sherman said it well on the Manhattan forums....

mattsherman wrote:We are looking for an answer choice that contradicts one of those pieces of information or combination thereof... this question is asking you the same thing as "must be false" or "could be true EXCEPT."

I have a strong feeling I'll never get a question like this wrong now.

WaltGrace83 wrote:Compatible. That is the word we are concerned with: compatible. I remember seeing something similar in PT30-S2-Q19 (Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot...). In that example, the stem asks about a principle that is "logically consistent...EXCEPT." These two questions are very similar in task.

In this question, we are given the following facts...

• (1) European music has had both (1) a strong influence and (2) status as a "sophisticated achievement" is because the music became an aspect of its style - not its defining force
  (2) In other words, dance music could stand independent of dance - the music depends on nothing but itself

This is not really an argument, just a passage. We somewhat except that in this type of question (looks like a flipped MBT question). So the task is to take this passage and see what is NOT compatible with it.

Now what probably tripped you up (and me the first time I did 30-2-19) is that you probably thinking that being "compatible" means being "supported" or "true" from the information in the passage. In other words, in order to be compatible, you think that it must have been directly talked about in the passage and you can find evidence as to why its supported in the passage. You may think this is like RC, right? That is exactly what I thought to the first time I did a question like this.

However, that is NOT what it means to be compatible. Someone should correct me if I am wrong but here is how I have come to understand this concept of compatibility, consistency, etc: To be compatible/consistent it does NOT have to be supported - it just cannot contradict the passage or argument. Let me give you an example.

• I love ice cream. Therefore, I will marry it.
  
  The argument made above is consistent with each of the following claims EXCEPT:
  (a) Someone who loves ice cream will marry it.
  (b) Most of the United States' population likes bacon
  (c) No one who loves ice cream will marry it.

Now if you understand consistency/compatibility with the way I just described, you probably thought (B) looks like it is not consistent. It is, after all, completely out of scope. You would have probably picked (B) on a test. However, look at (C). We already know that someone loves ice cream and, from that fact, we conclude that someone will marry ice cream. However, doesn't (C) contradict the argument? It is saying that everyone who loves ice cream will not marry it. In other words, IF you love ice cream THEN you will not marry ice cream. This blanket statement contradicts the argument! So (C) contradicts....(B) is out of scope....how can there be two correct answers?!

As you know, there cannot be two correct answers. (C) would actually be correct. Why? Because being out of scope is CONSISTENT with the argument. We know nothing about people's love for bacon from the argument - thus it could very well be consistent with the argument. If we don't know anything about the answer choice - if it seems out of scope - it is probably consistent. What is NOT consistent with the argument? Something that CONTRADICTS the argument. Matt Sherman said it well on the Manhattan forums....

mattsherman wrote:We are looking for an answer choice that contradicts one of those pieces of information or combination thereof... this question is asking you the same thing as "must be false" or "could be true EXCEPT."

Awesome explanation! I took PT 38 as my diagnostic and when I looked at this question initially I was like what the hell is this question asking?! And during blind review I spent literally a half- hour trying to figure this question out. Like Louie said, I feel like I'll never get this question wrong again--hopefully. This really underscores the importance of understanding each question type. My problem was that I misunderstood what the word "compatible" meant in this context, and it prevented me from answering this question correctly. Thanks Walt for your help!