Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT144 S1 P1 Q6 Explanation

Arnold Shoenberg

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor OpinionSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

“Never was anything as incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting produced in music. The most piercing dissonances clash in a really atrocious harmony, and a few disagreeable and deafening effect.”

This remark aptly characterizes the reaction of many listeners to the music of Arnold Schoenberg. But this particular criticism comes from the pen of the dramatist August von Kotzebue, overture to Beethoven’s opera Fidelio.

Both Beethoven and Schoenberg stirred controversy because of the way they altered the language and extended the expressive range of music. Beethoven, of course, has stood as a cultural icon for more than a century, but that didn’t happen overnight. His most challenging works did not become popular until invention of the phonograph, which made repeated listening possible.

Like Beethoven, Schoenberg worked in a constantly changing and evolving musical style that acknowledged tradition while simultaneously lighting out for new territory. This is true of the three different musical styles through which Schoenberg’s music evolved. He began in the late-Romantic manner—music charged with shifting chromatic harmonies—that was pervasive in his youth. get past the fact that they are listening to a piece by Schoenberg.

Schoenberg later pushed those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis. He did this in part because in his view it was the next inevitable step in the historical development of music, and he felt he was a man of destiny; he order to express what he was compelled to express.

Finally, he developed the 12-tone technique as a means of bringing a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it. In all three styles, Schoenberg operated at an awe-inspiring level of technical mastery. As his career progressed, his its contrasts, and therefore more difficult to follow.

But the real issue for any piece of music is not how it is made, but what it has to say. If Schoenberg hadn’t existed, it would have been necessary to invent him, and not because of the 12-tone system, the seeds of which appear in Mozart. What makes Schoenberg’s music essential because it is incoherent, shrill, and ear-splitting, but because it unflinchingly faces difficult truths.

What this question is testing

Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
6.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the relationships between the

Answer choices

  1. Correct63% picked this

    Each successive style represents a natural progression from the

    Why this is right

    There isn't a strong line reference to match up with "natural progression", but this ends up being the best available answer. To Schoenberg, the move to the 2nd style was "the next inevitable step", so to him it probably represented a natural progression. For our author, Schoenber "needed to go to that 2nd style in order to express what he was compelled to express", so that sounds like a logical progression. The 2nd style freed Schoenberg from some constraint that was keeping him from expressing what he wanted to express. There isn't really any editorializing about the move to the 3rd style, other than that it was developing a more systematic world for the 2nd style to operate in, so that's a fairly natural progression. It's a pretty natural progression to go from having a conceptual breakthrough into then having a more hierarchical classificatory stage where you organize this new world.

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. Too Strong: inexplicable Semi-Contradicted11% picked this

    Each successive style represents an inexplicable departure from the

    The author offers an explanation for why Schoenberg went from style 1 to 2. In fact the author offers Schoenberg's rationale and adds her own, so she thinks the 2nd style is doubly explicable. :)

  3. Too Strong: inexplicable departure13% picked this

    The second style represents a natural progression from the first, but the third style represents an inexplicable

    The author does not seem to be exasperated by confusion about why Schoenberg went from style 2 to 3. Style 3 is just cleaning up and organizing style 2, so there's nothing here approaching the extremity of "inexplicable departure!"

  4. Too Strong: inexplicable Semi-Contradicted12% picked this

    The second style represents an inexplicable departure from the first, but the third style represents a natural

    The author offers an explanation for why Schoenberg went from style 1 to 2. In fact the author offers Schoenberg's rationale and adds her own, so she thinks there are multiple ways to explain the departure from the first style.

  5. Too Strong: inexplicable Semi-Contradicted1% picked this

    The second style represents an inexplicable departure from the first, but the third style represents a natural

    Just like (B) and (D), there's no way this author would say that the move from style 1 to style 2 was inexplicable, when the author offers multiple explanations for it.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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