Q3 - The reason music with

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Simple rhythms have primordial appeal because it reminds us of the womb.
Evidence: The first sound we hear is our mom's comforting regular heartbeat. When we leave the womb, we miss that comfort, and so we are drawn to simple rhythms.

Answer Anticipation:
When we do an ID the Conclusion question, we anticipate seeing the conclusion in either 1. The first sentece or 2. Attached to some but/yet/however rebuttal. These questions rarely use conclusion words like Thus/Therefore/So/Hence to show us the main conclusion. Instead, they rely on premise indicators F.A.B.S. (for, after all, because since) or opinion-words like "probably" / "will likely" / "should". Here, the fact that the 2nd sentence begins with "after all" tells us immediately that the first sentence was a conclusion (and, as it turns out, it was the main conclusion).

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yup. Just need a good paraphrase of the first sentence.

(B) Premise.

(C) Premise.

(D) Never said one thing is "because" of another.

(E) Premise.

Takeaway/Pattern: Being good at ID the Conclusion questions is 98% being good at finding the conclusion. Remember NOT to be looking for it in the expected, easiest ways (i.e. DON'T expect last sentence conclusions). Expect upside down arguments. The author makes a claim and then unpacks it, or she disagrees with someone and then explains why she disagrees.

#officialexplanation

[stephen.dewart]

This is probably so simple and yet I'm really not seeing it clearly. I chose (C) because it seems to be a conclusion based on preceding remarks. (A) -- which appears to be a repeat of the passage's first sentence -- didn't seem to be the conclusion as much as background informing the portion which I deemed the conclusion: "So in taking away from us the warmth and security of the womb, birth also takes away a primal and constant source of comfort.

Can you help clear this up?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Happy to help. On this one, it's helpful to think in the abstract and not just about the topic at hand.

We're asked to identify the conclusion of the argument. Most of the time such a task is not that difficult. But on identify the conclusion questions, since our task is to merely identify the conclusion, the test writer is likely to make identifying the conclusion a bit tougher. One method at the test writer's disposal for doing so is to introduce subsidiary conclusions.

We can often identify conclusions by key words such as "therefore, since, so, it follows that, etc." We are given several of those key words in this question. The claim you identified as the conclusion begins with the word "so." The last sentence begins with the word "thus." But neither of those claims are the conclusion of the argument. Both of them are intermediate conclusions on the way to the final conclusion.

In this argument the structure is best seen as an observed phenomenon and an explanation for why the observed phenomenon is occurring. For questions like this, the reason or the explanation is the conclusion. Since the first sentence is the explanation for why a simple and recurring rhythm exerts a strong primordial appeal, the first sentence is the conclusion of this argument.

The best way for me to explain this is to compare it to another question of a similar kind. Check out

PT43, S3, Q23 - Each of many human hormones

I think you'll see the same structure underlying both arguments! Good luck and let me know if you still need help with this one.

[lhermary]

For the life of me I can't figure out why the last sentence isn't the conclusion. What part of the stimulus points to the first sentence as the conclusion and not a premise?

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The words "after all" point in the direction of the first sentence as the conclusion. But that doesn't prove that the first sentence is the conclusion, just indicates that it's a claim that apparently follows from the second sentence. What other indicators do we see? In the beginning of the 3rd sentence we see the word "so", implying that it follows from the 2nd sentence, and in the final sentence we see the word "thus" suggesting that it follows from the previous sentence. Familiarity with the LSAT draws my attention to the fact that the first sentence is an explanation of something, which has a strong tendency to be the conclusion. For a similar (yet more challenging) example, check out:

PT43, S3, Q23 - Each of many different

In the end we have:

Main Conclusion
Premise
Intermediate Conclusion
Intermediate Conclusion

Hope that helps!

[clare.ess]

I selected "Thus it is extremely natural that in seeking sensations of warmth + security..." as the main conclusion. When I tried the Therefore Test after checking the correct answer, the final sentence still seems to make more sense following the first sentence than vice versa. Any insights?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The first sentence is an explanation for why music has a strong primordial appeal. Explanations are a very common form of conclusion on ID Conclusion questions. Language cues (thus, therefore, hence, etc) are very frequently traps on such questions. So the word "thus," while tempting is also suspicious.

In this case, the last sentence is a general principle about it being natural to seek out comfort in naturally recurring rhythmic sounds. The first sentence is a situation that conforms to that principle. Does it make more sense to argue from specific to general or from general to specific?

Here's an example of the general/specific relationship. Which argument makes more sense?

A. The garbage was picked up in the afternoon this week. Therefore the garbage must be picked up in the afternoon every week.

B. The garbage is picked up in the afternoon every week. Therefore the garbage will be picked up in the afternoon this week.

We can argue from general to specific logically, but not vice-versa. So using the Therefore Test in the question at hand should also take us the specific as the conclusion of the argument - indicating the first sentence rather than the last one.

Finally, there is no answer choice that represents the final sentence - another indication that it is not the argument's main point.

Hope that helps!

[steves]

I also had trouble using the Therefore Test to decide between first sentence (Answer A) and the last (Answer D), but Matt's explanation makes sense. Using, Matt's explanation, perhaps a For Example test works better for this particular question: Last sentence. For example, first sentence.

Will a For Example test typically work to identify the conclusion, or is that likely to cause problems with other questions?

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post, Steves. Instead of For Example, I like to think about a “because” test. “Because” always points to the premise. “For example” will sometimes point to the premise, but on many questions the premise does not take the form of an example. Thus the “because” test is more universal.

Best,
Rina