Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S3 · Q24 Music critic: How well an underground

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Music critic: How well an underground rock group's recordings sell is no mark of that group's success as an underground group.

Conclusion

How well an underground rock group's recordings sell is no mark of that group's success as an underground group.

Evidence (after all)

You could have strong sales, but not for a cool reason, rather because your music is too trendy to be authentically undergroun.

You could have weak sales, but not for a cool reason, rather because you're just incompetent.

Evaluate

This argument can be hard to understand. It helps to start by thinking of how you prove a claim like "X is no mark of Y", for example, .

Maybe some people think "beautiful people are good people". But we could show them that beautiful people are sometimes bad.

Maybe people think the opposite: "beautiful people are bad people". But we could show them that beautiful people are sometimes good.

Ultimately, we're trying to show that beauty doesn't go hand in hand with good or bad. An attractive person might be good or bad, just as an unattractive person might be good or bad.

Some people might think that if a band's recording sells really well, then they are a success! No, our author says, because sometimes a band sells well but their music is too trendy to be authentically underground.

The author is assuming that they're not a success, if they're music isn't authentic / it's just trendy.

Some people might actually think to be a successful underground group, you should be so weird and provocative that you aren't popular, that your recordings don't sell well. But, no, our author says, because you might sell poorly just because you're incompetent.

The author is assuming that if you're incompetent, then you're not successful.

Goal

Essentially this author is thinking that SUCCESS as an underground group requires being authentic and competent.

She thinks that if you're too trendy to be authentic, or if you're incompetent, then you're not really a success.

Let's look for an answer that strengthens any of these missing links.

24.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the music critic's argument?

  1. If an underground rock group

    Bad Evidence Match

    Our author thinks, "If successful as an underground group, then authentically underground and competent". This says that success requires "recordings that sell moderately okay". Our author never was implying that. If our author thought that selling medium-well is required to be successful, then that would contradict his conclusion. That would mean that "how well you sell IS a mark of success. If you're not selling mid-level, that shows us you're not a success!"

    9% picked this

  2. Correct

    An underground rock group is

    Why this is right

    This connects both of the missing links the author created. incompetent or → unsuccessful as und group too trendy to be auth Your recordings sold well? Psssh, that doesn't mean ou're successful. You might be too trendy to be authentic (and according to this rule, that means you are unsuccessful) Your recordings sold poorly? Pssh, that doesn't mean you're successful. You might just be incompetent (and according to this rule, that means you're unsuccessful).

    Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    48% picked this

  3. Whether an underground group's recordings

    Bad Evidence Match

    Many underground musicians consider "selling poorly" to be desirable. So this answer is saying, "Whether your recordings sell poorly is no mark of your success". That ain't nothing. The author IS arguing that selling poorly is no mark of your success (since you might sell poorly due to sheer incompetence). So this somewhat strengthens. But the conclusion is also saying that "selling well" is no mark of your success, and this answer has nothing to contribute to that half of the argument. Thus, it loses out to the answer that deals with Selling Well and Selling Poorly.

    18% picked this

  4. An underground rock group is

    Bad Evidence Match

    The author acts like incompetence or inauthenticity are enough to judge "unsuccessful as an underground group". He thinks, "If you're incompetent or inauthentic, then you're not successful." This answer is sounding more like a Negation: "If you're competent but sell poorly, then you are successful". The author is never trying to make that argument; in fact, if he were, then it would undermine his conclusion. This rule makes it seem like how well you sell IS a mark of your success. Selling poorly is half of the trigger. It's part of how we prove you're successful, so how well you sell is a mark of success.

    16% picked this

  5. For an underground rock group,

    Bad Evidence Match

    The author is acting like competence and authenticity are required conditions for underground success. That sort of thinking sounds more like they are marks of success. This answer is denying their connection to success, so it sounds more like the opposite of the author's thinking.

    9% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free