Although it is unwise to take a developmental view of an art like music—as if Beethoven were an advance over Josquin, or Miles Davis an advance over Louis Armstrong—there are ways in which it makes sense to talk about musical knowledge growing over time. We certainly know more about certain sounds than was known five centuries ago; that is, we understand how sounds that earlier composers avoided can be used effectively in musical compositions. For example, we now know how the interval of the third, which is considered dissonant, can be used in compositions to create consonant musical phrases.

Summarize Argument
The author argues that it is appropriate to consider how musical knowledge grew over time. Knowledge of sounds has increased - we can now use sounds that composers previously avoided. An example of this is how we can now use the dissonant interval of the third effectively.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s claim about understanding music: “there are ways in which it makes sense to talk about musical knowledge growing over time”

A
Sounds that were never used in past musical compositions are used today.
This is support that shows musical knowledge has grown.
B
Sounds that were once considered dissonant are more pleasing to modern listeners.
This is not contained in the stimulus. There is no information about what is pleasing to modern listeners.
C
It is inappropriate to take a developmental view of music.
This is part of the context that sets up an argument about musical knowledge.
D
It is unwise to say that one composer is better than another.
This is an inaccurate rephrasing of the context.
E
Our understanding of music can improve over the course of time.
This rephrases the conclusion that we can talk about the development of musical knowledge.

1 comment

A recent test of an electric insect control device discovered that, of the more than 300 insects killed during one 24-hour period, only 12 were mosquitoes. Thus this type of device may kill many insects, but will not significantly aid in controlling the potentially dangerous mosquito population.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that an insect control device will not help to control the mosquito population. This is because a recent test showed that only a small fraction of the total insects the control device killed were mosquitos.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there were mosquitos in proximity to the control device that weren’t killed during the test. If the 12 mosquitos the controlled device killed were the only 12 mosquitos nearby, then the author couldn’t draw his conclusion about how useful the control device will be in controlling mosquito populations.

A
A careful search discovered no live mosquitoes in the vicinity of the device after the test.
While the control device only killed 12 mosquitos during the test, it appears to have killed all 12 mosquitos that flew by. Thus, the control device does in fact seem to be helpful in controlling mosquito populations.
B
A very large proportion of the insects that were attracted to the device were not mosquitoes.
Even if this were true, we need to know more about the mosquitos. What percentage of those nearby did the control device kill?
C
The device is more likely to kill beneficial insects than it is to kill harmful insects.
We don’t care about how generally beneficial the control device is. We’re interested in its usefulness for controlling mosquito populations.
D
Many of the insects that were killed by the device are mosquito-eating insects.
If anything, this suggests the control device certainly wasn’t killing many mosquitos. The mosquitos predators were dead so the mosquitos would’ve had more opportunity to be killed by he control device.
E
The device does not succeed in killing all of the insects that it attracts.
We don’t care about all the insects attracted to the device. We need to know about the mosquitos.

17 comments

Consumer advocate: Businesses are typically motivated primarily by the desire to make as great a profit as possible, and advertising helps businesses to achieve this goal. But it is clear that the motive of maximizing profits does not impel businesses to present accurate information in their advertisements. It follows that consumers should be skeptical of the claims made in advertisements.

Summarize Argument

Consumers should be critical of what advertisements say. This is because advertising helps businesses fulfill their profit-generating goals, and these goals do not require presenting accurate information.

Notable Assumptions

The advocate assumes that just because the goal of generating profit does not motivate businesses to present accurate information in their ads, there is no other factor that does.

A
Businesses know that they can usually maximize their profits by using inaccurate information in their advertisements.

This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the premises by noting that businesses are aware that deception in advertisements can lead to larger profits, and we already know that businesses are motivated primarily to maximize profit.

B
Businesses have often included inaccurate information in their advertisements.

This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the conclusion that consumers should be skeptical of advertisements’ claims, as businesses have been shown to present false information in their ads.

C
Many consumers have a cynical attitude toward advertising.

This does not affect the argument. Whether or not consumers are already skeptical of advertisements is not relevant to the advocate’s argument, which is about whether consumers should be skeptical of the claims made in advertisements.

D
Those who create advertisements are less concerned with the accuracy than with the creativity of advertisements.

This strengthens the argument. (D) says that accuracy is not the biggest priority for those developing ads, which suggests that accuracy could be compromised in favor of creativity. This strengthens the conclusion that consumers should be skeptical of the claims made in ads.

E
The laws regulating truth in advertising are not applicable to many of the most common forms of inaccurate advertising.

This strengthens the argument. It suggests that current laws are insufficient to protect consumers from inaccurate claims in advertising. Thus, consumers should be skeptical of advertisements’ claims.


5 comments