PT60.S3.Q24 - underground rock group's success

lawschooldreams

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-24/
Really unclear as to why (B) is the correct answer.

The conclusion of the stimulus is about "marks of success."
Answer choice (B) talks about whether a rock group is successful/unsuccessful. This seems to be beside the point as we are discuss METRICS that determine success not about WHETHER something is successful/unsuccessful.

I really liked (E) because it sticks with the conclusion's scope - "marks of success." I know a potential problem with (E) is that it discusses COMPETENCE whereas the stimulus mentions only the group's incompetence. But why can't we interpret competence in (E) as a concept that encompasses both the presence and lack of it?

CJ Shin

Ah, this PSA was a hard one. But like all SA type questions, just focus on the premise and conclusion, and how to link them.

The conclusion says that record sales should not be used to gauge the success of an indie rock band.
Why? Because good sales indicate that they are too "trendy," and in the indie rock world, being poppy is "uncool" and these guys actually prefer their sales to be not so high. But on the other hand, they also don't want it to be too low because that just means that you are incompetent (yea.. fickle bunch of people right?).

So the key words that you need to link up in this stimulus are "trendy" and "incompetence" to "not being successful," which B does precisely.

If you read E closely, it actually destroys the link between the premise and conclusion. If you tell me that authenticity and incompetence are not enough to gauge the success of an indie band, why the hell are you telling me that record sales (which indicate the two ideas above) are a bad way to gauge success? Can't we use it along with some other measures?

lawschooldreams

Thanks for the reply. However, I'm still not seeing how (E) destroys the link between premise and conclusion. It seems like it strengthens the connection. It's saying that these two things (authenticity and competence) aren't in themselves marks of success, and the conclusion of the stimulus is concerned with precisely that - establishing that record sales AREN'T marks of that group's success. Am I missing something?

Also, the problem that I'm still seeing with (B) is that it's talking about "not being successful," which in my mind is different from "not being a mark of success." If anything, if (B) were true, we could make a case that it actually UNDERMINES the conclusion, since, if we know that a group is unsuccessful, wouldn't this information be a mark of success (that is, the lack of it)?

CJ Shin

Hey lawschooldreams,

First of all, I do understand your frustration. SA type questions have become progressively more difficult and opaque, especially their answer choices.

But remember that the fundamentals are the same. Your job is to link up the premise to conclusion with another piece of information that makes the conclusion more valid. In this case, its not 100% SA question so you do have some room to spare in its validity.

So let's go through the stimulus again, and I apologize in advance for the term "destroying the link" that I used before. Maybe this is why you were confused with the explanation. After looking at the question again, it actually doesn't "destroy" the link, but it gives less support than B does. And here is why.

Again, the premise you are given are two pieces of info about recording sales: 1. good sales indicate that the band is not authentic; 2. poor sales indicate incompetence. From this evidence, the critic concludes that therefore recording sales is NOT an indicator of success.

To visualize this stimulus, imagine a dialogue between two people, one of them being the music critic. What is a good indie band these days.. ah, let's take Vampire Weekend as an example.

So a fan of Vampire Weekend says "look, these guys have sold 1000000 copies of their new album! Wow they are successful!" And the stimulus is the music critic's response to the fan's remark: "no no no, how many albums they sell cannot be used to say that they are SUCCESSFUL because numbers don't show the whole picture. They indicate problems of authenticity and incompetence."

Now, the key issue with the critic's remark is the meaning of SUCCESS. What does it mean for something to be successful? Who says that authenticity and incompetence are indications of success? Sure, in our world they do.. but in LALA land, you just cannot make this assumption. You need to provide it.

The reason being is that what if the fan of Vampire Weekend replies "whatever dude, Vampire Weekend still sells 1000000 copies and although they are not authentic, they are still god damn rich and money is all that is important" or "well, they may be incompetent.. but I still like them because they are incompetent. Reminds me of my old days of garage bands." You see where this is going? You need to provide a bridge that links the notion of these two ideas with what it means to be successful.

As for E), the problematic phrase is "not in themselves marks of success," which means that authenticity and incompetence (derived from recording sales) are not 100% indicative of success. But doesn't it still leave some room for recording sales to be used to say whether or not the band is successful? The conclusion straight up rejects this notion.

on the other hand, just nails it 100% leaving no room for such possibility. It says that yes, lack of authenticity or incompetence do mean that you are unsuccessful, therefore, sales cannot be used to say whether or not you are successful.

Let me know what you think!