Self-study
Paragraph 1:
This mostly relates to #2
The explanation video states that evidence for answer choice E lies in lines 5-8 in the first paragraph, but how I can infer that even musicians didn't know about the London Pianoforte School? Could I infer from the content of the passage that the author is in the field of music?
#4: How could I tell that the question wants me to focus on a causal relationship?
Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-1-passage/
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-1-questions/
0
23 comments
1.
A. He called into question something?
B. OK
C. Revived? Beyond that, this is half scope
D. most reliable?
E. modern piano influenced composers?
2.
A. Field typify something the school's style?
B. best known?
C. I don't know what this is saying, most likely wrong...
D. Tricky: I was down to this and E; however, this is wrong because attempts were done but unsuccessfully...
E. I picked this; the only thing I didn't like was "even to musician"... The support comes from lines 8-10
3
A. Contradicting
B. Opposite
C. Acclaimed by leaders?
D. OK - relatively helped ease the well known...
E. Revive?
4. I focused on the following lines 40-43: The reason Beethoven left Austria is because Austria was not progressive enough and lack creative models...
A. This weakens by suggesting that creative models/progressiveness was there in Austria and hence Ringer's premise is less strong
B...
C....
D...
E...
6. The third paragraph brings about a point that is close to the point mentioned in the previous paragraph...
A. Cast doubt?
B. OK - coherency is a logical interconnection, which in this case is the school in the London Pianoforte school
C. ...
D. Complex nature?
E. Unique contributions?
8.
A. This was not mentioned by T. Moreover, T would disagree; check out lines 37-38
B. This sounds like T. He is the one who mentioned something like this in the second paragraph
C. This was mentioned around Ringer... (Last paragraph)
D. Uhm... I like B better. This sounds like Ringer but obviously reworded to confuse us
E. Like C, this was mentioned by the author... (Las paragraph)
Always helps to skip music writers' name-dropping of obscure indie musicians.
—
propound
verb [with object]
put forward (an idea, theory, or point of view) for consideration by others
JY: "D is just ridiculous"
Me: picked D
haha fml!
@dimakyure869 said:
@ashleytien240 said:
Reviving this thread...for #2, how could we infer that there were original scores in existence? The first paragraph does state that some sonatas are "familiar enough" but isn't that a bit of a jump or is the fact that they are familiar enough evidence to show that the scores for these pieces did exist?
The pieces are named in the passage, and it states they are still included in editions albeit less-scholarly ones. So if we still have the music, I would say that tells us it in fact exists. Also yes, I don't think we would we be familiar with them if they never existed.
Also not sure if this is what you're getting at, but the author being in the music field has no bearing on this question.
Oh yeah, I know. I just had the feeling that the author was a musicologist or was at least in the field of music after reading paragraph 1, and I asked in the comments below the video explanation for this passage whether he was and people were debating for days...so I did a google search and could finally lay this question to rest.
Could I think of the answer to #2 in two ways? That the music of the LP school is generally unavailable (has vanished from our historical consciousness) to the public (which includes musicians) and that even musicologists can't get their hands on it so it's reasonable to assume musicians can't either...
@ashleytien240 said:
Reviving this thread...for #2, how could we infer that there were original scores in existence? The first paragraph does state that some sonatas are "familiar enough" but isn't that a bit of a jump or is the fact that they are familiar enough evidence to show that the scores for these pieces did exist?
The pieces are named in the passage, and it states they are still included in editions albeit less-scholarly ones. So if we still have the music, I would say that tells us it in fact exists. Also yes, I don't think we would we be familiar with them if they never existed.
Also not sure if this is what you're getting at, but the author being in the music field has no bearing on this question.
@dimakyure869 said:
@ashleytien240 said:
Agh, I thought the argument was causal, like the London Pianists influenced Continental (European) musicians and the example with Beethoven and the Broadwood Piano was meant to highlight that relationship
Thanks for responding
You're welcome! Thanks for posting your difficulties here. You likely helped many future and present people with the same questions that didn't want/know to ask.
Remember that you need to be spot on with everything they give you to read, because it it likely phrased in a way that is intentionally meant to be confusing. Take the time up front to understand. It will pay off.
Reviving this thread...for #2, how could we infer that there were original scores in existence? The first paragraph does state that some sonatas are "familiar enough" but isn't that a bit of a jump or is the fact that they are familiar enough evidence to show that the scores for these pieces did exist?
I finally broke down and did a google search and yes, the author of this article is indeed a musicologist and published this article in the American School of Musicology...
@ashleytien240 said:
Agh, I thought the argument was causal, like the London Pianists influenced Continental (European) musicians and the example with Beethoven and the Broadwood Piano was meant to highlight that relationship
Thanks for responding
You're welcome! Thanks for posting your difficulties here. You likely helped many future and present people with the same questions that didn't want/know to ask.
Remember that you need to be spot on with everything they give you to read, because it it likely phrased in a way that is intentionally meant to be confusing. Take the time up front to understand. It will pay off.
Agh, I thought the argument was causal, like the London Pianists influenced Continental (European) musicians and the example with Beethoven and the Broadwood Piano was meant to highlight that relationship
Thanks for responding
@ashleytien240 said:
Paragraph 1:
This mostly relates to #2
The explanation video states that evidence for answer choice E lies in lines 5-8 in the first paragraph, but how I can infer that even musicians didn't know about the London Pianoforte School? Could I infer from the content of the passage that the author is in the field of music?
The first paragraph tell us it is generally unavailable, even to musicologists, as it has vanished from our historical consciousness... from a historical perspective we aren't even aware that it existed. The "has been" in AC E means that it was little known... regardless of who knows it now. Also A-D are unsupported.
4: How could I tell that the question wants me to focus on a causal relationship?
You have to get your stem right before you move into the ACs. Here you are DOA if you even try this. The stem references Ringer's argument, so first identify the argument: The laws of artistic survival forced Beethoven to turn outside Austria for creative models, toward London. What was the support for this claim? When you identify that, you have your argument. Now look for the answer that weakens it.
Who is the author referring to when he talks about "our historical consciousness" in the first paragraph? And can we infer from this passage that the author is a musicologist too?
#help (Added by admin)
Would really appreciate a response!
I think "our historical consciousness" is referring to musicologists & people studying music since the sentence preceding talks about the general unavailability of the school's music in modern scholarly editions. I wouldn't venture out to say the author is a musicologist themselves -- I don't see anything in the passage to suggest that.
Following. On first reading, I had assumed society in general. On a second reading however, I could see how anyone could mistake "our historical consciousness" as a reference to that, but the author doesn't give us another clue to favor that they refer to themselves as a musicologist. If they had, I would expect to see some return to this by manner of weighing in on the subject by some assertion by the final paragraph. I didn't find the author's voice or opinion to be such.
Because the second sentence states "our historical consciousness"
Isn't that "our" referring to musicologists? Isn't it a jump to assume that because musicologists can't get ahold of music from LP school, that musicians can't either?
I did a google search and found this article. The author was indeed a musicologist and this was published in the American Musicologist Society.
That makes sense then! Originally I was thinking the author could either be a musicologist or someone studying music since I think that "our" refers to the music community in general.
Ignoring the fact we now know they're a musicologist, I guess we could look at the subject matter and say it's reasonable to think they're a musicologist. But I still don't think you can assume the "our" wouldn't refer to musicians too. I think to myself, "what is musicology?" -- the study of music. Who's involved in the study of music? Professors who are subject matter experts on the various aspects of music, and their students. Those aspects would include the history of music, how to play instruments & compose, etc. So when the author says "our historical consciousness", thinking that refers to musicologists only is too narrow.
Even if we take the "our" to refer to musicologists only, I think (E) is still supported for Q02. If musicologists don't have access to a modern scholarly edition, and if we think of musicologists as the subject matter experts when it comes to the study of music, then how would a musician have access to it? Musicologists are the ones who are doing the research into the history of music and disseminating it to their students; I think it's safe to say they're the source of that information for the average musician. So if there's not a modern scholarly edition of the LPS floating around somewhere that the scholars can find, I don't see how a musician would find a modern edition. I'm also thinking the "scholarly" aspect is important on the grounds it verifies historical accuracy; if there's no scholarly edition, then whatever edition might be floating out there can't be said to be the original song/composition.
I just couldn't stand it anymore because I've literally been debating this issue with people on the forum and comments for a month and Google finally came through to me. So we can think of it in two ways then: if even musicologists, or music scholars couldn't get their hands on this info, what makes you think musicians generally could? And if LP school music has "vanished" from "our historical consciousness," then we can conclude that this music isn't available to society at large, which includes musicians.
If you could confirm my reasoning with me, I would be eternally grateful. And I don't know how active you are on the forums, but I actually have an LR question there, and it would be of great help to me and some other poor souls who are sure to encounter that question in the near future if you could take a look at that too.
Yes exactly my thinking! If a music scholar says "it vanished from our historical consciousness" I translate that to mean everyone that would be interested in it, i.e. other scholars, musicians, & music students.
1. Main Point
A: Temperley doesn’t call anyone into question. Rather calls into question the idea of a school, if anything
B: this is correct – paragraphs 2-3 focus on this, 4 tangentially
C: we do not know if the music itself has been revived
D: no discussion of the reliable basis for musicological research
E: This is a tangential point discussed in the last paragraph
2. Inference of LPS
A: we do not know if typify can be said. So this is wrong based on that word.
B: We don’t know anything about what is a best-known work
C: We know it is generally unavailable but we don’t know if no original scores exist
D: We don’t know anything about other editions, and it seems to be false because there are other editions but they lack scholarly rigor.
E: This can be inferred from “indeed, much of this repertory has more or less vanished from our historical consciousness”
3. Function in Context
A: we do not know if they have been preserved rigorously
B: it seems they are more familiar, and definitely are remembered
C: we do not know if they are leaders of the LPS or not
D: yes, this says “…have remained familiar enough”
E: we do not know if they are included in Temperley’s anthology
4. Weaken – Ringer says Beethoven had to go outside of Austria for creative models
A: this weakens because if Austrians created music for the broadwood piano as soon as it became available, why would Beethoven need to go outside for creative models?
B: This seems to be consistent with the time period – doesn’t weaken
C: This is consistent, doesn’t weaken.
D: This is consistent? Doesn’t weaken
E: This would strengthen, if anything? It shows how people went to the continent.
5. Meaning of Phrase: Advances – this is describing how the Broadwood piano was different from other pianos, or how it was improved. This is AC B.
6. Function of Paragraph
A: author does not cast doubt on usefulness of T’s anthology
B: yes, paragraph 3 talks all about whether the concept of “School” is adequate or not.
C: Ringer isn’t until the next paragraph
D: no discussion of nature of musicological elements
E: we do not know anything about this
7. Primary Purpose
E: this is the correct answer because the author is focused on Temperly’s contribution, although other things are known about the LPS
D: this is descriptively inaccurate - the author does consider an alternative to discussing the idea of a school, but not the theory of Ringer.
8. Inference – Temperley treats LPS as
A: not correct because the author writes Temperley concedes that their variety (e.g. having various stylistic principles or aesthetic creeds) is so great
B: yes – this is exactly what the author says Temperley does in the last line of the passage.
C: The influence on Beethoven is just a fact, it’s not the main purpose of the LPS
D: it’s not just compositions – it’s people, too.
E: it’s not just compositions, it’s people too.
#1
I chose C because I thought that there was more known now about the school after the creation of this anthology. However, the word revived may be too strong for that, so this is the wrong answer. It was bad, because I kept going back to this question and wasted more time.
#2
The correct answer is B. It encompasses the MI of the entire passage.
I chose D, but I don't know. All of the answer choices seemed questionable to me, so I just made a guess at random lol.
The correct answer is E is subtle. Has been little known makes sense, because the text supports it. It was so so so tricky though, and I am still not sure if I would get this during the actual test.
Did anyone else find this passage both weird and challenging?
Definitely found it challenging the first time around. Just have to keep at it with the memory method !