Reading Comprehension

PT144 · S1 · P1 · Q6 Arnold Shoenberg

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

“Never was anything as incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting produced in music.

Topic

Schoenberg's music: Its controversy, innovation, and emotional impact compared to Beethoven.

Framework

Old / New

Main Point

Like Beethoven before him, Schoenberg drastically expanded and altered the language of music in ways that upset many listeners, but his innovations—especially his emotional expressiveness—make his music both important and essential despite ongoing controversy. *The Most Valuable Sentence appears in the final paragraph: *

P1: Complaints About Chaotic Music

We open with an angry, over-the-top critique of “incoherent, shrill, chaotic” music—but the twist is, this was actually leveled at Beethoven, not Schoenberg.

P2: Reactions to Musical Innovation

The author draws a direct line between the criticisms Beethoven once faced and how people now react to Schoenberg; both pushed the boundaries of music and sparked backlash, though Beethoven is now revered.

P3: Comparing Schoenberg and Beethoven’s Innovation

Schoenberg, like Beethoven, never settled into a single style. Instead, he kept innovating, building on tradition while also forging into new musical territory, especially through three distinct periods in his own work.

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 three styles in which Schoenberg wrote?

  1. Correct

    Each successive style represents a

    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.

    63% picked this

  2. Each successive style represents an

    Too Strong: inexplicable Semi-Contradicted

    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. :)

    11% picked this

  3. The second style represents a

    Too Strong: inexplicable departure

    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!"

    13% picked this

  4. The second style represents an

    Too Strong: inexplicable Semi-Contradicted

    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.

    11% picked this

  5. The second style represents an

    Too Strong: inexplicable Semi-Contradicted

    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.

    1% picked this

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