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.
