#7 - Jorge: You won’t be able to write well about the rock

[Administrator]

There is also a complete and different breakdown of this stimulus in the discussion of the next question, #8, here: viewtopic.php?f=582&t=32605

Complete Question Explanation

Point At Issue. The correct answer choice is (A)

The argument between Jorge and Ruth is about who is potentially able to write well about rock music of the 60s. Jorge essentially claims that to be able to write well about rock music of the 60s, one must have been in his/her teens or twenties in the 60s (so no one else can write well about 60s rock music). Ruth responds that those not in their teens or twenties in the 60s could still potentially write well about rock music from that period (she uses an analogy about writers discussing ancient Roman culture to support her claim).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Jorge would agree with this statement, saying that only those people who were in their teens or twenties in the 60s can write well about rock music from that period, and Ruth would disagree saying that other people can write well about rock music from the 60s.

Answer choice (B): The disagreement is not about whether people in their teens or twenties in the 60s can write well about rock music from that period, but rather it is about whether other people can also write well about it.

Answer choice (C): Jorge never mentions writing about ancient cultures, so this answer fails the Agree/Disagree Test.

Answer choice (D): It is possible that both Jorge and Ruth would agree with this answer choice: Jorge says that those in their teens and twenties in the 60s can write well (so they are past their teens and twenties now), and Ruth would also likely say that those not now in the teens or twenties could write well about 60s rock music.

Answer choice (E): Neither speaker mentions the audience to which Ruth’s writing is meant to appeal, or how appealing her writing would be.

[blade21cn]

I got this one wrong and I was down to (A) and (B). I somehow eliminated (A) because it says "can be qualified to write about" while the stimulus says "won't be able to write well." I tend to think there's a slight difference between "whether someone can be qualified to do something" and "whether he can do it well." For example, someone can get a driver license, but still be a lousy driver. Can anyone shed light on whether this is a term shift or not? Thanks!

[George George]

@blade21cn

Excellent question! I'm going to grant your distinction, for the sake of argument.

Jorge's conclusion says that Ruth "won't be able" to "write well." One reading (yours) of this is that Ruth can write, and is qualified, but not able to write very well, so that when she writes about 60s Rock, she is qualified and yet doing it very poorly. This seems unlikely. The commonsense interpretation is that you're not "qualified" if you're not at least capable of doing something adequately or competently (i.e. "well"). (By the way, this is not an outside assumption. I checked on the definition of "qualified"! The definitions I found said that to be qualified, one should be "fitted" to the office/position, or "competent," or "having the skill necessary for something," and even "thoroughly trained." With these definitions, I truly don't think there's any way to say that someone who can't do something well would somehow be nonetheless qualified.) In other words, what I'm suggesting here, is that by definition if someone (Ruth) cannot do something (write about 60s Rock) "well" then they are thereby not "qualified" (i.e. "fitted," "trained," "skilled," "competent," etc.) to do it. The takeaway here is that the LSAT loves to use synonyms in answer choices. Think of the LSAT test writers as big geeks with even bigger thesauruses!

(But this connection between "unable to do it well" and "unqualified" is exactly the leap I take it you don't think is fair for the LSAT to make.) So, as a second point, I suggest you note the language I emphasized from Jorge's conclusion above: "won't be able." This is a very strong, categorical statement that Ruth cannot and will never be able to write competently about 60s Rock! Since Jorge believes this, it seems he would never deem Ruth "qualified."

Now, as a further comment on this question, Conspicuously, the exact term "write well" shows up in three wrong answers - (B), (C), and (D). I have a hunch the LSAT test writers were "baiting" LSAT students with that exact buzz word! (This does not mean exact terminological match makes an answer wrong, or that you should beware of it repeating. But it does mean that the LSAT may have been camoflauging the correct answer here.)

[caroline222]

I chose A because I didn't like the rest of the answers, but upon reviewing, I am having difficulty understanding why Jorge would agree with the fact that only those who were in their teens or early twenties during the 1960s can be qualified to write about the rock music of that period. Jorge says that Ruth is unable to write well about rock music of the 1960s because she was an infant. But he doesn't say anything about anyone not being able to write well about 1960s rock music who was 30, 40, etc. at the time. I think Jorge would agree that people who were younger than their teens/early twenties are unqualified to write about the rock music of the 1960s, but I don't know that he would say that in order to be qualified, someone must be in their teens/twenties. Can someone help me with this?

[caroline222]

Following up on my previous comment, isn't Jorge basically saying that in order to write well about 1960s rock, one must have not been an infant at that time (write well infant)

I feel like it is incorrect to characterize what Jorge is saying as in order to write well, you must have been teens/20s. What about the old people? Would Jorge think they could write well about 1960s rock music? To me it seems like he leaves this unclear...

[Robert Carroll]

Caroline,

Jorge certainly thinks that anyone who was an infant in the 60s is unable to write well about the rock music of the 1960s. It's worthwhile thinking about where the dividing line is for Jorge. Consider the following possible interpretations:

People who were infants in the 1960s, or people who weren't even born yet in the 1960s, will be unable to write well about the rock music of that decade; everyone else may be able to write well.

People who were infants in the 1960s will be unable to write well about the rock music of that decade; everyone else may be able to write well.

People who were infants in the 1960s and people who were aged 45-60 through the 1960s will be unable to write well about the rock music of that decade; everyone else may be able to write well.

And so on. We could carve up age groups any way, as long as "infants during the 1960s" are people who are unable to write well about the rock music of that decade. Jorge certainly thinks that THAT age group is unable to write well, and we're unsure what other age groups should count.

But this isn't really a fair depiction of the situation. Jorge clarifies WHY he thinks that being an infant in the 1960s disqualifies a person from writing well: the second sentence privileges a certain group, those in their teens and early twenties during the 1960s. So infants are excluded not because they were "too young", but because they were the wrong age in general, and that wrong age is "anything but in your teens or early twenties." So of course infants-in-the-1960s aren't able to write well now about the rock music of the 1960s, but that's because they're in the wrong age. The wrong age isn't just "too young" but also "too old" - anyone not in the narrow age range Jorge's second sentence applies would be disqualified by him.

You even say that Jorge would agree that those younger would be excluded from writing well...true. But, aren't you then focusing on Jorge's second sentence? Younger than teens/early twenties is bad because it's not teens/early twenties; but then OLDER than teens/early twenties is bad too, right? Otherwise, we'd rely solely on Jorge's first sentence, which only disqualifies infants - it wouldn't disqualify, for instance, someone who was 8 years old. But you know that Jorge means to disqualify that person as well. So you know that the second sentence is required to fully define his qualified age range.

Robert Carroll

[caroline222]

Hello! Thank you so much for your thorough response. I totally see where my thought process was going wrong and hopefully I can adjust it for the next time I come across a similar question! Thank you