Subscription pricing
Stim says: European music is sophisticated because it's intelligible
The choice D says: unintelligibility and "most" sophisticated music is correlated
Since D only talks about "most sophisticated music" it can still be compatible with stim, which only refers to sophisticated music.
how can one explain this choice, mainly the difference in degree in D?
0
11 comments
well, what you are saying is contradictory. "why it's sophisticated" alone isn't an independent clause. if you're combining it with another clause "is because it's intelligible”, then you're simply winging your explanation. you then can't combine "is because it's intelligible” with the first independent clause about "one reason" because you have used this clause for the clause after "and". if you're applying a rule to justify something then you need to apply consistently which isn't the case here.
either way, this is digressing from the point of the thread and debating grammar here may likely be not much use.
one of the above posters had posted this, which is different from your or my reading of stim and still wouldn't explain away the issue in the OP with the question as according to this quote intelligibility would be a reason for Euro music's influence, which would then be a reason for its sophistication. so still "most sophisticated music" correlating with unintelligibility could be compatible with the argument in the stim.
the stimulus says being intelligible on its own is "a" reason for why European music has had such a strong influence throughout the world, but this is the reason why it is a sophisticated achievement.
Actually it is. The comma used with the coordinating conjunction “and” can only be used when it is combining two independent clauses. Admittedly, this is an incredibly bizarre sentence in that the two independent clauses share the same predicate, sort of like a grammatical conjoined twin. It is an independent clause ("why it's sophisticated ... is because it's intelligible”) nonetheless, separate from the other independent clause, "One reason why euro music has had strong influence...is because it's intelligible”. The parallelism of “one reason” is broken by the comma, so we can infer that intelligibility makes it sophisticated. Thankfully, this kind of structure isn’t seen on the modern LSAT.
So the stim is:
"One reason why euro music has had strong influence, and why it's sophisticated, is because it's intelligible"
"And" separates the clause from the first one, but both "it's because it's intelligible" and "one reason" apply to both questions posed in the middle of the sentence. The comma is used to separate only these two questions.
The clause isn't independent as "why it's sophisticated" alone isn't a complete thought or sentence.
@lschoolgo550 I’m afraid that’s not true. The “and it is a sophisticated achievement” is in it’s own clause and is not subject to the “one reason” in the independent clause. This disagreement all comes down to the commas that surround “and it is a sophisticated achievement”. Had the commas not been there, I’d think you’re argument might carry some weight. Unfortunately that’s not the case. English sucks.
Not really. "One reason" applies to both why European music has had influence, and why it's sophisticated.
No, the stimulus says being intelligible on its own is "a" reason for why European music has had such a strong influence throughout the world, but this is the reason why it is a sophisticated achievement.
@lschoolgo550.janson35
that's not really "the bar for sophistication" per the stim. Stim is only saying that being intelligible when independent of its original function is "a" reason for sophistication of Euro music.
That could hold true and you can still have unintelligibility correlating with "most sophisticated music" like the choice D says, and both stim and D can be compatible. Note that D is not just sophisticated music, it's "the most sophisticated music", a difference in degree.
The stimulus is defining sophisticated music as music that has so much internal coherence it can stand on its own independent of its original function--dance music can be enjoyed without dancing, for example. So that's the bar for sophistication, according to the stim. With that said, something that is unintelligible (i.e. incoherent) when stripped of its context or original function doesn't meet this standard of sophistication, and if it doesn't meet this standard then how could we ever say that it is MOST sophisticated. We can't, and so D must be false.
"One reason I made it home for Thanksgiving was that I got on an airplane." Does that mean that getting on an airplane is sufficient to making it home for Thanksgiving? No. It was simply a factor involved in that happening. I think I immediately ran to a suff --> nec interpretation of the first sentence when that is not the case at all. Now if we were to consider the "reason" as one -necessary- component, then (D) really does contradict the stim. But it that reason necessary? The only thing I believe for sure is that it is not solely sufficient. BTW this is not an explanation, just further confusing thoughts. @lschoolgo550 @lschoolgo550
This is a Must Be False question. Think “Compatible” = “could be true”. Super tricky. I think this is a great example of a style of stimulus that’s thankfully not part of the modern LSAT. For most Must be False q’s, you’re able to chain something together and then look for an answer that contradicts it. For this question, it’s not that simple. I’d answer this best by easily eliminating A, B, C and E because they’re so weak. While in contrast from MBT and MSS questions, for Must Be False questions, the stronger answers tend to be the correct ones. Essentially, you have to equate "coherence with “intelligibility” and then, answer D contradicts the stimulus, especially the first sentence. I think you’re difficulty is the “most”. But I think the stimulus is implying that Unintelligible music would have zero sophistication. With that in place, any level of sophistication would contradict that statement. But I have no real logical framework to base that on. I’m practically making a necessity/sufficiency flaw by explaining it that way, but because it uses no logical indicators, I think we can get away with it. More like flawgic... :)
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-25/
@lschoolgo550 This was tough. It is a must be false...so, POE the "could be trues" and you are left with ac(D) but honestly I think a true contradiction is hard to argue for....seeming like a contradiction sure. We could use some further analysis... @tutordavidlevine115 @lschoolgo550 @lschoolgo550.janson35