Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q9 Editor: It is a myth

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

Editor: It is a myth that a significant amount of music on the Internet is the result of people downloading others’ music and reworking it into new music of their own.

Conclusion

It's a myth that a significant amount of music online is the result of people downloading others' music and reworking it into new music of their own. (i.e. there is not a significant amount of music online that came from people downloading something, sampling it in a new creation, and uploading that creation)

Evidence

99% of people who download music do not publish new music of their own on the internet.

Evaluate

There are a lot of LSAT arguments testing the idea of , and we're basically supposed to say .

If only 1% of people who download music publish new music of their own on the Internet, how could we say a ton of music online came about by people downloading music, sampling it into something they made, and then publishing it?

Maybe among those 1% are a lot of avid music producers. 99% of us are just downloading, but the 1% are an army of people like Drake and Post Malone, publishing song after song after song.

To put it a different way, say there are only 100 people. The author is thinking that since only 1 of them (1%) publishes their music online, then only 1% (an insignificant amount) of the music online could be coming in the form of download/sample/publish.

But, if this 1 person creates 50 songs that way, and the other 99 people don't publish any new music of their own, then when it comes to those 100 people, the only music they're contributing to the Internet is those 50 songs that were of the download/sample/publish variety.

Goal

Look for an answer saying that even though 1% is a small percentage of the downloading population, that 1% might be prolific music producers who are responsible for lots of the existing music on the Internet.

9.

The editor’s reasoning is questionable in that it

  1. Correct

    overlooks the possibility that a

    Why this is right

    Does it hurt the argument to say that "a small number of people can create a significant amount of new music"? Sure! It's basically doing the classic LSAT move of "your Evidence is compatible with your Conclusion being wrong." The Evidence was that only 1% of people could possibly be contributing to the pool of music that results from downloading others' music, sampling it, and publishing it in a new work of your own. If this small number of people can create a significant amount of new music, then we can say to the author, "See, buddy? There is a significant amount of music that comes from downloading / sampling / publishing."

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

    76% picked this

  2. neglects to consider the ease

    Irrelevant Objection

    Does it hurt the author's argument to say that "it's wicked easy to publish music on the Internet"? Nope. He would just say, "Cool, well however easy it is, that doesn't change the fact that 99% of people don't do it."

    1% picked this

  3. fails to provide an alternative

    Not a Flaw

    If a defense attorney manages to convince the jury that Tony wasn't the killer, she's done her job. She doesn't also have to solve the crime for the police. Similarly, the author can win his argument by convincing us that most of the music doesn't come from Source X. He doesn't also have to explain for us where most of the music does come from. Alternate explanations definitely can help someone prove that "X wasn't the cause of Y", but they're not necessary. A defense attorney can get Tony off the hook by selling the jury on an alternate story (maybe Tony didn't kill Boris, but rather Boris's disgruntled former employee killed him), but the attorney can also get Tony off the hook by just presenting a clear alibi (the murder happened in Denver on August 1, and Tony was in Paris that night, as all these witnesses testify).

    4% picked this

  4. presumes, without giving justification, that

    Too Strong: always

    The author doesn't have to assume that in 100% of cases, people who sample downloaded music into their new creations publish it on the Internet. Speaking as someone who knows, a lot of our creations are mediocre so we don't publish them. Also, if we negate this assumption, it wouldn't weaken the author's argument at all. If we said, "You know sometimes people download music into new creations but don't publish it on the Internet", the author would be like, "Yeah, I know. That's part of why I said there isn't a significant amount of music on the Internet that has been downloaded / re-worked / published".

    20% picked this

  5. takes for granted that Internet

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: always Out of Scope: prefer What people prefer is totally out of scope. The truth value of this conclusion is merely about the quantity of a certain type of music on the Internet. The author certainly did commit herself to the extreme assumption that in 100% of cases, Internet users prefer original music to music that has downloaded samples in 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.

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