LSAT 151 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q20

LR Question 20 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: According to a theory embraced by some contemporary…

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: The radical musicians’ music is inconsistent with their theory.

REASONING: The musicians say that music has no meaning. But, the musicians feel they must explain this theory to the audiences, as the theory is radical.

ANALYSIS: The conclusion is that the music doesn’t match the theory (i.e. it does not lack meaning). The evidence is that the musicians must explain their theory before their performance.

That’s it. Those are the only two facts. On sufficient assumption questions, you should draw the conclusion and the evidence split apart:

Explain theory before performance                   music does not lack meaning

All you need is to place an arrow between the two statements, and you’ve proven the conclusion. So the right answer will be something like “If you explain your theory before a performance, your music has meaning”.

Sufficient assumption questions really can be that simple. If you prephrase the answer above and skim the five answers, you can see that one of them matches and the others don’t. It can feel hard to take the time to prephrase lsat questions, but it can really pay off for sufficient assumption questions.

___________

1. This would only prove the conclusion if it said it was impossible to create music that has no meaning. Though that likely wouldn’t have been an answer choice, as it doesn’t use any of the evidence from the argument to prove the point.
2. You can draw this as “music has no meaning ➞ audiences accept the theory”. So, if the musicians succeed in convincing the audiences of their theory, then they could indeed have created music with no meaning. The argument was trying to conclude the opposite.
3. This answer seems familiar, but you’re not looking for something that uses familiar concepts. You must bridge the gap instead. Further, while this answer is familiar, it’s actually not even talking about what the stimulus was talking about. The author never discussed how and when music is distinguishable from random sounds! Only this answer mentions randomness. Something can lack meaning but not be random. People are composing this music after all. They aren’t just striking piano keys willy nilly and copying down whatever happens. Watch for when answers try to catch hidden assumptions you’re making.
4. The stimulus didn’t talk about audience enjoyment of music. It talked about audience acceptance of music. Those are different concepts, so this answer is irrelevant. Modern art often is about a “message” that challenges peoples’ expectations. However, such art is also often devoid of enjoyment. Whether people accept something and whether they positively enjoy listening to it are different questions. Further, the stimulus never talked about popular conceptions of music! This answer is like C: It mentions concepts that “feel” related to the stimulus but actually weren’t in it.
5. CORRECT. It’s simpler if you draw this:
    
   No meaning ➞ Do not explain
    
   Explain ➞ Meaning
    
   This matches the stimulus above. The musicians do explain their performance, so according to this answer their music does have meaning.