#7 - Columnist: It has been noted that attending a live

[smile22]

For this question, I was able to narrow the answer choices down to D and E. I ultimately chose answer D because answer E wasn't clear to me. Would it be possible to get an explanation of answer E and how it differs with answer D? Thank you.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Smile,

Sure thing. Answer D is saying that observation is the thing the columnist is trying to argue against, but we know the columnist AGREES that a live musical performance is a richer experience (he says there must be some other reason for why that is true). Answer E, on the other hand, is saying that observation is the thing being explained by that second sentence (and that second sentence, in turn, is the one the columnist is trying to argue against). That accurately explains the place of the observation; the columnist doesn't disagree with it, he just disagrees with the explanation for it given in the second sentence.

[mpoulson]

Hello,

Can you explain in simple terms what E is actually saying? I didn't understand what "it is what the position that the columnist tries to undermine is purported to explain" means. Nevertheless, I chose C becuase from my perspective the first sentence is "It is what the columnist’s argument purports to explain". I thought the author simply wanted to explain why live performances are better. Simply put, Can you explain why C is wrong, E is correct, and what is E actually saying ? Thank you for the help.

- Micah

[BethRibet]

Hi Micah,

When something is "purported to explain" something else, it basically means, the first thing supposedly explains the second thing. So if I said "I think you need a jacket today", and then said, "the temperature's going to drop 20 degrees, and you'll get cold without it", then my second statement would be a position that "purports to explain" my claim that you should wear a jacket.

The argument starts with a claim (i.e.: live music is a richer experience), then the author gives us a position that provides a supposed explanation for that claim ("some say..."). Then the author attacks that position (the author attacks the explanation).

So answer choice E is a convoluted way of saying that the statement in question (that live music is richer), is the initial claim or statement -- about which the argument then presents a position that explains the claim, which the author then undermines/attacks.

C isn't accurate, because it's saying that the author is trying to explain the first statement. The author doesn't do that, the author only attacks someone else's explanation.

Hope this helps!
Beth

[mpoulson]

Thank you for the explanation of purports to explain. I don't think I fully understood what it meant. So A is wrong for the same reason as C? The Columnist doesn't explain why live music is richer he simply undermines the rational that listening to live music is better because of seeing the performers? Let me know if I am on the right track.

- Micah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Micah,

You're on the right track! The first sentence contains an observation that the second sentence ("some people...") attempts to explain. The columnist makes a counterargument ("however...") using an analogy, which shows that the rationale behind the explanation is not a valid one. In other words, the observation in the first sentence is what some people have "purportedly explained" - an explanation the author isn't terribly happy about, and attempts to undermine.

It's a convoluted sentence for sure, but this is par for the course.

Hope this clears things up!

[ashpine17]

so is c wrong because the columnist is not trying to explain why attending alive performance is richer than listening to recorded music; he seems to disagree with that because he says there is little difference?

[Adam Tyson]

It's wrong because the author neither supports that claim nor attempts to refute it. The author is merely trying to say that if that's true, it cannot be for the reason some people have given. It does seem that the author tacitly accepts that claim, and is only concerned with discussing why it's true.