PrepTest 131, Section 2, Question 7
Columnist: It has been noted that attending a(66 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(28 more words not shown)
- AIt is what(6 more words not shown)
- BIt is the(13 more words not shown)
- CIt is what(6 more words not shown)
- DIt is what(6 more words not shown)
- EIt is what(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A live concert can feel different from listening to a recording. But why? One explanation says the difference is merely that we can see the performers.
I can think of other possibilities. At a concert, we may give the music our full attention; while listening to a recording, we may be driving or working. The presence of other listeners or the sound itself might matter too. And consider a music video: it lets us see the performers, but it could still feel different from being at the concert. So visibility might be part of the explanation without being the whole explanation.
The columnist also thinks some other reason is needed, but gives a different objection. Hearing a story over the radio supposedly differs little from hearing someone read in the same room. I'm not sure that comparison settles the music question. Stories and music could depend on seeing the performer in different ways.
What we’re looking for
Still, we're asked for the role of the opening observation, not whether the comparison works. Keep the pieces separate: live music being richer is the fact to be explained; visibility is someone else's proposed explanation; the columnist argues that explanation is insufficient. The columnist doesn't tell us what the additional reason actually is.
Working the answers
- A
What the argument aims to show is that there must be some other reason for the richer experience. The richer experience itself is accepted at the start. A would turn that starting observation into the conclusion.
- B
The observation is the phenomenon the other people are trying to explain. It isn't a reason establishing that their particular explanation, visibility, is correct. A fact needing an explanation and evidence supporting one proposed explanation play different roles.
- C
This is tempting because the whole discussion concerns explaining the richer experience. But the columnist doesn't supply that explanation. The columnist challenges someone else's explanation and says another reason must exist. C attributes the explanatory work to the wrong position.
- D
The columnist doesn't deny that live music is richer. The target is the claim that visibility alone accounts for that difference. D confuses the observation with the explanation being challenged.
- ECorrect
Read the layers carefully. The position the columnist tries to undermine is that seeing the performers entirely explains the difference. What does that position purport to explain? Why attending a live performance is richer than hearing recorded music. That is the opening observation we're asked about. E places the fact, the proposed explanation, and the columnist's criticism in their proper relationships.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.