PrepTest 117, Section 2, Question 21
It is highly likely that Claudette is a(41 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(6 more words not shown)
- Aignores the possibility(15 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(10 more words not shown)
- Drelies for its(8 more words not shown)
- Eignores the possibility(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Knowing the music doesn't mean she plays the piano. Claudette recognizes many of Clara Schumann's works. Most classical pianists do too. That resemblance by itself is weak evidence: most basketball players have eaten bread, but meeting someone who eats bread doesn't tell us that person probably plays basketball.
The next fact makes the argument more interesting. The vast majority of people who aren't classical pianists don't recognize this music. So this isn't as common a trait as eating bread. Still, could Claudette know the music for some other reason? Maybe she's a violinist. Maybe other musicians recognize these works even though they aren't pianists.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion is that she's highly likely to be a classical pianist, not that she definitely is one. So merely pointing out that another possibility exists won't finish our objection. For this flaw question, keep asking whether the evidence really makes pianists the likely group among the people who recognize the music. The other kinds of people who might know it matter here.
Working the answers
- A
Knowing other composers' work doesn't tell us whether Claudette plays the piano. She could know Beethoven even better than Schumann and still be a classical pianist, or know both without playing. Comparing her knowledge of composers doesn't identify the gap in this inference.
- B
The argument gives separate facts about recognizing the music and having heard of the composer. It doesn't infer the first from the second. Someone might recognize a tune without knowing its composer's name, but that possibility doesn't remove the stated fact that most nonpianists don't recognize many of these works.
- C
Pianists could also play the violin or trombone. Nothing here requires piano to be their only instrument. Our violinist example matters because someone could know the music without being a pianist at all, not because playing another instrument prevents someone from playing piano.
- D
The meaning of “classical” doesn't change during the argument. The problem would remain even if we had a perfectly clear definition of classical pianist: knowledge of the music might still be common among other musicians.
- ECorrect
Most of the people who recognize this music could be nonpianists. That would make the evidence a poor basis for calling Claudette highly likely to be a pianist.
Imagine 100 classical pianists, 90 of whom recognize the works, and 10,000 other people, 200 of whom recognize them. Most pianists recognize the music, while the vast majority of nonpianists don't. Yet among the 290 people who recognize it, 200 aren't pianists. These made-up numbers show how the stated facts can fit a group in which most knowledgeable people are violinists, other musicians, or listeners instead. We need to consider that group before deciding which description probably fits Claudette.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.