Help understanding if this reasoning is flawed

[ncesomonu]

Hello guys,

I am trying to improve on my ability to evaluate arguments, so I'm working with an old LSAT workbook and came across the following phrase:

Long hours of practice are necessary for developing musical skill. One must develop one's musical skill in order to perform difficult music. But long hours of practice are tedious. So performing difficult music is tedious.

Is this reasoning flawed? I diagrammed it, (pdm----->dms-----> LP----->T) pdm---->t

Any help would be appreciated!


Thanks

[box1king]

No, that reasoning is not flawed. It is valid. The arrows can be followed, allowing it to read:

PDM -> T

[tommywallach]

I would argue it's illogical, and this is the danger of using logic diagrams for anything but CAUSAL relationships (x causes y). To put it simply, just because STUDYING something is boring doesn't mean PERFORMING it is boring. The process of being prepared to perform is boring, not the performance itself.

-t