Critical Reasoning

Tough LSAT

I find B to be the only one point to be strongly criticizing.

As the parents are deciding what there child should do in future and the will of children has not been considered.

Answer according to me is B.

IMO C

Parents ==> children ability and Strong foundation (SF) ==> Good music

Formal instruction (FI) ==> part of good music.

Means, conclusion Parents ==> children ability and Strong foundation ==> Formal Instruction.

I am trying to find something in reverse

What is people have FI, but no SF?

Only C discusses the same.

hahaha! Now it makes sense y i said its tough guys! Give them a shot once more...Luckily I got this one rite..but i should say it was one damn freakiest question...

In second attempt I will say E

I'd go for D. Since it says the complete opposite of the premise that the question builds.

OA : D
KAPLAN explanation:

17. (D)
More flawed logic: After reading the first sentence, we know that a good musical
education provides children with a strong foundation for their musical abilities. That
much is certain. But then things become a little less definite. We're told that formal
instruction is often a part of a good musical education. This strongly implies that formal
instruction may not always be a part of a good musical education; otherwise, why would
the author say "often" instead of "always"? Yet the argument proceeds to treat formal
instruction as if it were an indispensable aspect of good musical education, the failing
described by (D).

(A) It seems that the author does consider the fact that parents aren't the only one involved
in this process. They're the ones who will ensure that the kids get formal instruction, but
presumably this instruction will come from music teachers.

(B) Perhaps not, but no matter how children feel about musical education, parents can't
provide a strong foundation without ensuring formal instruction-at least, not if the
author's correct. Bluntly put, the author's not really interested in the children's desires, but
rather in what happens when parents wish to musically educate their children.

(C) It doesn't matter whether a child's musical ability is poor or brilliant. In either case, the
author claims, children won't get a good musical education unless parents ensure formal
instruction. This is an example of necessity vs. sufficiency: The author argues that formal
instruction is necessary for a strong musical foundation. He doesn't say that formal
instruction will guarantee musical virtuosity.

(E) This argument concerns the measures parents can take to help their children develop a
strong musical foundation. The fact that these measures may not be necessary to provide
that foundation in all cases does not injure the argument.\


"¢ This makes two questions in a row where the key to success resides in your noticing
one or two critical words in the stimulus. If you miss the word "often" in this
stimulus, it becomes much tougher to find the correct answer.


"¢ And once again, a scope shift comes into play. "Often" in the evidence simply
doesn't support the much stricter "need to ensure..." of the conclusion. In Flaw
questions, always compare the evidence to the conclusion to see where the logic goes
astray.

gmatmachoman,

thanks for posting a great question for discussion. for this type of weaken question, try to identify the flaw in the argument before reading the answer choices. To do this, break the argument down into its premises and conclusion. Look carefully for gaps in logic or wording trickery (the key on this problem)

the first sentence states an essential premise in the argument:

if parents want their children to have a strong foundation then they must give them a good musical education.

reading the first part of the second sentence carefully is the key to success on this problem: "Since formal instruction is OFTEN a part of a good musical education...." This means that formal instruction is usually part of a good musical education but the language does not state that it is an necessary condition of a good musical education. In other words, formal instruction does not guarantee a good musical education and a good musical education does not guarantee that you had formal instruction. There is no defined or absolute relationship between the two things.

The conclusion states that if parents want to give their kids a strong foundation then they MUST make sure their children are receiving formal instruction.

This is clearly a flawed conclusion: What we are sure of from the argument is that if kids want a strong foundation, then they must have a good musical education. However, nowhere is it stated that to have a good musical education you MUST have formal instruction.

Answer choice D clearly exposes this flaw by showing that formal instruction might not always be a part of a good musical education. To clarify, imagine that little Johnny did not receive formal instruction but received a good musical education. This is absolutely possible given the parameters of the premises and so it is not necessary to ensure that kids get formal instruction. Answer choice (D) best exposes the flaw in the original argument.

Sorry for redundant post machoman - was writing mine as you posted the Kaplan explanation (which seems to cover the issues well). Good question with important takeaways for precision in language!

Blimey!!I got this right..when I read the argument "that formal instruction is often a part of a good musical education" the word "often" strikes me and made me to choose D.Bingo:)

selango wrote:Blimey!!I got this right..when I read the argument "that formal instruction is often a part of a good musical education" the word "often" strikes me and made me to choose D.Bingo:)

Me too!
Perfect Start for the day!

It's very rare when i mark a tough CR question correctly,

But this time i got it Right.
finger crossed for the next one...

Hey Goyal

Okay ..then i shall post some super tough CR for u!!

ATB

I will definitely be looking forward to that,

I think we're all looking forward to it Govi...!