LSAT 53 - Section 3 - Question 03

Here we have a Main Conclusion question, which we know from the question stem: Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument? Let’s turn to our stimulus:

First, we’re told that it’s not advisable to take a “developmental” view of music. Interesting. I’m not quite sure what that means. Are you also wondering what it means? Well you’re in luck! We get an example of a developmental view of music in the embedded phrase that follows: seeing one composer as a clear, linear “advancement” over an earlier composer (i.e. Beethoven is an advance over the earlier composer Josquin). Side note: Although we might not know the chronology of these composers offhand, we can reasonably infer that Josquin comes before Beethoven because this is the only conceivable way in which Beethoven could represent an advancement over Josquin.

Ok back to the embedded phrase: this embedded phrase is an illustrative example of what it means to take a “developmental” view of music, but it also makes this sentence incredibly cluttered and unwieldy. I don’t know about you but I don’t like things that are cluttered and unwieldy so I’m tempted to tidy this up. The good news is, we don’t actually need this embedded phrase to understand the basic thrust of this sentence–so what if we just…set it aside? When you get an embedded phrase like this (often offset by hyphens or commas), first give the sentence an initial read all the way through and then reread the sentence this time skipping over the embedded phrase. These embedded phrases are subordinate clauses (incomplete ideas that cannot stand on their own) used to elaborate upon or modify a part of the main sentence. Reading through a sentence without the embedded phrase can help you better understand the main thrust and core ideas of the sentence.

Without the embedded phrase we can see that the first sentence basically boils down to: we shouldn’t view music itself as developing in a linear way, but it does sometimes make sense to discuss how our knowledge of music has, in fact, grown over time.

Then we move on to our second sentence and get an example of our musical knowledge growing over time: we know more about sounds than we used to. This idea is supporting the notion that our knowledge of music has grown by giving a concrete example of a verifiable growth in knowledge. Because it lends support, we know that this is a premise supporting the conclusion that our knowledge of music has grown over time. Is this the main conclusion though? Only time will tell…

Moving on to the third sentence, we get a sentence that now actually supports the second sentence (which we previously identified as a premise). The second sentence tells us that we know more about certain sounds than we used to; the third sentence gives us an example of how we know more about certain sounds by highlighting our evolved understanding of the musical third. So we have ANOTHER support relationship with the third sentence providing an example that supports the second sentence. This makes the third sentence a minor premise that supports our second sentence which is now a major premise/sub-conclusion, receiving support from the third sentence and lending support to what is now, clearly our main conclusion: there are ways in which it makes sense to talk about musical knowledge growing over time.

Now let’s move on to looking for a description of this major conclusion in the answer choices:

Answer Choice (A) This is referencing our sub-conclusion in sentence two–so we know right away that it’s wrong. It’s also imprecise: it states that certain sounds “are used today” whereas our stimulus merely suggests that these sounds “can be used.”

Answer Choice (B) This is a description of our minor premise in the third sentence and is therefore incorrect.

It also talks about the effect of sounds on modern listeners, whereas our stimulus approaches all of this without considering the perspective of listeners.

Answer Choice (C) This is a paraphrase of the context we get in the first sentence and is therefore incorrect.

Answer Choice (D) This is not at all supported. It is a misreading of our context which tells us that we shouldn’t view composers as advancements over earlier composers. This answer choice refers to composers being “better” than other composers which is not the same thing as representing an “advancement” over another composer.

Correct Answer Choice (E) This matches with our conclusion: there are many ways in which it makes sense to talk about musical knowledge growing over time.