LSAT 145 – Section 4 – Question 22

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 22

December 2015

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:30

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT145 S4 Q22
+LR
Argument part +AP
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
3%
157
B
8%
159
C
67%
166
D
21%
162
E
0%
152
143
155
168
 +Harder 148.528 +SubsectionMedium

Live Commentary

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Theorist: Hatred and anger, grief and despair, love and joy are pairs of emotions that consist of the same core feeling and are distinguishable from each other only in terms of the social conditions that cause them and the behavior they in turn cause. So even if the meaning of a given piece of music is the emotion it elicits, this can mean only that music produces the core of a given emotion, for music is merely sound and, therefore, by itself creates neither social conditions nor human behavior.

Summarize Argument
The theorist argues that even emotional music can only produce the “core” of a particular emotion, not the entire emotion. What the theorist means by the core of an emotion is that certain emotions involve the same basic feeling, or “core,” but are distinguished by social conditions and behavior associated with the emotion. The theorist also claims that “music is only sound,” so it can’t be responsible for the social conditions and behaviors that define certain emotions. Together, these two premises lead to the conclusion that music can’t be responsible for the entirety of an emotion, just its core.

Identify Argument Part
The claim that music is only sound (which cannot create social conditions or behavior) is one of two premises which work together to support the conclusion.

A
It is a generalization a particular instance of which is cited by the argument in order to undermine the viewpoint that the argument is attacking.
Firstly, the argument isn’t attacking any particular viewpoint. Secondly, the theorist never cites a particular instance of music being just sound. Thirdly, the claim that music is only sound doesn’t undermine anything.
B
It is a portion of the conclusion drawn in the argument.
No other claim supports the idea that music is only sound, so it can’t be the conclusion. Instead, the conclusion is that music can only produce emotional “cores,” not full emotions.
C
It is a claim that is offered as partial support for the argument’s conclusion.
This accurately identifies that the claim that music is only sound is one of two premises which together support the conclusion. This is a premise, each of which provides partial support.
D
It is a generalization the truth of which is claimed to be necessary to establish the conclusion of the argument.
The theorist doesn’t claim that music being sound is necessary to the argument. Just because it supports the conclusion, doesn’t mean it must be true for the conclusion to be true.
E
It is a hypothesis that must be rejected, according to the argument, because it is inconsistent with certain evidence.
The theorist never argues that any claim should be rejected, nor is evidence cited as a reason for rejecting any claim.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 145 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply