Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 646 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
26.3.17 (Flaw Questions Problem Set 18)
Accounts Playable
Live Sage ⭐
I had a very hard time differentiating D and C, I chose C since I thought D was descriptively inaccurate.
Parents who want to give their kids a good foundation in music should give them a good musical education. Formal instruction is sometimes apart of a good musical education. Therefore, a strong foundation needs to have formal instruction.
What I am looking for: Just because formal instruction sometimes works, it doesn't mean that it is necessary.
Answer A: So what?
Answer B: Who cares about if the kid is interested.
Answer C: This is what I chose after I eliminated D. This says, some people who have formal instruction don't have good musical ability. Knowing that D is correct, I think this would have worked if "ability" were substituted with "education." This would have made this answer choice exactly like D, but my problem with D is stated below.
Answer
I don't see how this is the answer since it is descriptively inaccurate. The question stem asks us to point out something that the argument "fails to consider." Doesn't the argument consider the fact that formal education isn't sufficient for a good musical education? Isn't this what sentence 2 (the premise) explicitly states? How does the argument fail to consider this? I understand that the conclusion is way too strong given the premise (the premise is a SOME statement and the conclusion is conditional), but that to me is a totally separate flaw than simply "failing to consider" what answer D states.
Answer E: Good musicians is a totally irrelevant idea.
Parents who want to give their kids a good foundation in music should give them a good musical education. Formal instruction is sometimes apart of a good musical education. Therefore, a strong foundation needs to have formal instruction.
What I am looking for: Just because formal instruction sometimes works, it doesn't mean that it is necessary.
Answer A: So what?
Answer B: Who cares about if the kid is interested.
Answer C: This is what I chose after I eliminated D. This says, some people who have formal instruction don't have good musical ability. Knowing that D is correct, I think this would have worked if "ability" were substituted with "education." This would have made this answer choice exactly like D, but my problem with D is stated below.
Answer
I don't see how this is the answer since it is descriptively inaccurate. The question stem asks us to point out something that the argument "fails to consider." Doesn't the argument consider the fact that formal education isn't sufficient for a good musical education? Isn't this what sentence 2 (the premise) explicitly states? How does the argument fail to consider this? I understand that the conclusion is way too strong given the premise (the premise is a SOME statement and the conclusion is conditional), but that to me is a totally separate flaw than simply "failing to consider" what answer D states.Answer E: Good musicians is a totally irrelevant idea.
Comments
The argument states that people who wish to provide a strong musical foundation NEED TO ENSURE that their children receive formal instruction, using the fact that formal instruction is often a part of a good musical education as support.
Stating that they "need to ensure" means that formal instruction is necessary for a strong musical foundation.
However, if formal instruction is sometimes not a part of a good musical education, then there's no reason for them to ensure that their children receive formal instruction.
I get that that's the flaw (SOME statement vs. a necessary condition), but my beef is the way the answer choice is presented. How does the argument fail to consider what D says? Isn't answer choice D the premise for the conclusion, and therefore, is considered by the argument?