Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q20 According to a theory embraced

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

According to a theory embraced by some contemporary musicians, music is simply a series of sounds, bereft of meaning.

Conclusion (thus)

The music of these contemporary musicians fails to conform to their theory (i.e. the music of these contemporary musicians does have meaning)

Evidence

These musicians encourage audience acceptance by prefacing their performances with explanations of their intentions (since they realize their approach to music is very weird).

Evaluate

"Bereft of" = lacking, devoid of. If we don't know that, we'll struggle to understand what failing to conform with their theory means, although we could make do with thinking,

Where does the author think he establishes that their music has meaning?

The closest semantic cousin would be explanation of their intentions. These experimental musicians who are about to play a bunch of weird noises, since to them, 'music is just a series of sounds with no meaning', first tell there audiences a little disclaimer:

Hey, everyone. Thanks for coming out. We're going to be doing stuff that sounds [smugly] a little different than what you're used to tonight. We believe that music has no meaning and is just a series of sounds, so we want you to listen to what we're doing and accept it via that framework.

Our author is basically saying, .

Goal

Look for a linking answer saying .

But we'll take anything that functionally allows us to prove that the music of these musicians does have meaning.

And if an answer isn't giving us a mechanism to prove that "their music has meaning", then it's functionally worthless to us.

20.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly drawn?

The human ability to think
Too Weak
This makes it seem like the contemporary musicians are probably wrong to believe that music is just a series of sounds with no meaning. But it doesn't have any power to prove that their music has meaning. It says it's very difficult (but not impossible) to make music without meaning, so it's leaving a gap where the music of these contemporary musicians might still be meaningless.
7% picked this
It will be possible for
Unrelated to Goal
Only when (just like "only if"), introduces necessary ideas. So this says, possible to create music listeners can accept that means nothing → this music theory We're trying to prove that "their music has meaning", so we want to see that idea on the right of the arrow. It looks like we'd have to contrapose this to get the part about 'meaning' onto the right side. The contrapositive looks like this: listeners can't accept impossible to create this music theory What we need is a rule that gives us a right side that looks more like this: such and → music does such is true have meaning Since this rule has no way to prove that music does have meaning, it's useless to us.
6% picked this
The fact that music is
Out of Scope: more appealing
This is not giving us a rule that allows us to prove that certain music does have meaning, so it's useless to us. It should also be a red flag on Sufficient Assumption when you see answer choices bring in new ideas, like more appealing to audiences.
5% picked this
Music that opposes current popular
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: less likely enjoyed No Impact This is not giving us a rule that allows us to prove that certain music does have meaning, so it's useless to us. It should also be a red flag on Sufficient Assumption when you see answer choices bring in new ideas, like less likely to be enjoyed by audiences.
3% picked this
Correct
Musicians whose music has no
Why this is right
In classic form, they've given us the predicted missing link in its contrapositive form. musician whose → don't preface a performance music has no w/ explanation of intention meaning So, preface performance → not a musician whose w/ explanation of music has no meaning intention These contemporary musicians preface their performances with an explanation of their intentions, so according to this rule, they are either not musicians, or they're musicians whose music does have meaning. We know they're musicians, so this rule is telling us that their music does have meaning. Thus, we've derived the conclusion.
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% 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