#18 - Specific Reference, Weaken

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[jessamynlockard]

Hi! Would it be possible to get a full explanation of the question & answer choices? I had trouble understanding the implications of 19th century symphonies playing the first three movements faster than today.

[James Finch]

Hi Jessamyn,

Whenever you're given a specific reference in RC, you have to look at the context that reference is in. This means seeing what led into that sentence, as well as what comes out of it (at the minimum, reading both of the sentences that bookend the the sentence(s) which contain the specific lines referenced). In this case, we can see that the entire paragraph is about divorcing music from its performance. The argument made in the lines referenced is being made as an intermediate conclusion to support the broader conclusion that written music shouldn't be divorced by music advocates from its performative aspects.

With all that understood, we can tackle the question itself. We're trying to weaken an argument, specifically that the way that the changing way in which audiences appreciate music has and should shape the way in which music is performed, as evidenced by the shift in when audiences applaud and the concomitant shift in the way that certain symphonies are played. This means we are looking for an answer choice that provides evidence that audience applause does not necessarily drive the way an orchestra plays a symphony.

So with that in mind, we can look at our answer choices:

(A)--This is about the instruments, which aren't referenced in the paragraph we're concerned with (paragraph 3) but are in paragraph 2. Irrelevant, immediate Loser.

(B)--References lengths of breaks between movements, which could theoretically have some effect on applause but aren't mentioned by the passage and irrelevant to the argument we're concerned with. Immediate Loser.

(C)--Dealing with musicians' responses to audiences' attitudes in both 19th-century and contemporary performances, which is relevant to the argument we're concerned with. Contender.

(D)--Deals with the applause after movements, which is again relevant to the argument at hand. Contender.

(E)--Deals with how knowledgeable 19th-century audiences were versus contemporary ones. Irrelevant, immediate Loser.

Ok, so now that we've narrowed it down to two answer choices, let's examine our Contenders in greater detail, and see which one serves our purpose of weakening the link between audience applause and musical tempo:

(C)--Relevant, but when we insert it into the argument that audiences applauding after every movement drove orchestras to play early movements faster, while the current custom of applauding only at the end of the orchestra leads to a faster finale, this answer choice serves more to strengthen that linkage than to weaken it. The argument we want to weaken is that orchestras are driven by audience response, so caring just as much then as now can only bolster that.

(D)--This answer choice essentially eliminates the value of the premise given, putting the conclusion on very shaky ground, by taking away the unstated linkage between applause generally and audience reaction. Thus, it is our correct answer.

Hope this clears things up!

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

Just want to check that my reasoning for (D) checks out. In the latter half of the second paragraph, the author argues that the tempo at which music is performed is affected by audience applause. The author posits that in early nineteenth century music, the first three movements of Mozart's and Beethoven's compositions were often played faster, while the final movement was played slower (relative to current day), since there wasn't any pressure to generate "brilliant" audience applause. "As a result, musicians were not forced into extra brilliance in the finale in order to generate applause, as they are now." If it is the case, as Answer (D) suggests, that nineteenth century audiences did reserve their most robust applause for the final movement, then the author's position that there wasn't pressure for musicians to play their final pieces more quickly and excitingly doesn't seem to hold, since the nineteenth century musicians would then be subject to the same audience pressures that motivate quicker, more exciting finales in modern day. On this basis, (D) seems to weaken the author's argument.

[Adam Tyson]

Perfect, Kelly! That is my take on it as well.

[sdb606]

Why can't I use a cause and effect flaw to weaken the argument? I read the author's explanation as:

audience applauds between movements breaks between movements (presumably they are not playing during applause) orchestras speed up movements.

To weaken this CE argument, you can show that a different cause explains the effect. Longer lasting breaks due to instrument tuning orchestras to speed up. The cause has been changed from applause to instrument tuning yet the effect is the same. Therefore the argument is weakened and B should be correct.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi sdb,

Focus a little more specifically on what the passage itself says about cause and effect, particularly the sentence at the end of line 54: "As a result, musicians were not forced into extra brilliance in the finale in order to generate applause, as they are now." So the author is saying that because of the fact that applause happened throughout the symphony, nineteenth-century musicians did not have to add "extra brilliance" to the finale of the symphony.

What's an answer that suggests that maybe these musicians did have to add extra brilliance to the finale, in spite of the initial applause they'd received in the first few movements (this would be a "Cause without Effect" style of weakening the argument)? It's not answer choice B, because it doesn't suggest that the initial applause would have a different outcome (it doesn't suggest that the nineteenth-century musicians would try to be more brilliant in the finale). Answer choice D does suggest that the musicians would try to be more brilliant in the finale (in spite of the initial applause), because it suggests the musicians would be trying to get that "most enthusiastic applause" that came at the end of the final movement. Now that doesn't mean that they weren't playing at a slower tempo (they were). But it does mean that they might have been striving for other elements of brilliance (maybe volume, or articulation, etc.) that would garner greater applause.

I hope this helps!