Q6

[wei_qi_qi]

Why A is correct? According to line 25, the first style is late-Romantic manner - music charged with shifting chromatic harmonies. However, the second style is "pushing those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis." I feel there is a huge gap between style 1 and 2 and it does not look like natural progression. Could anyone help me? Thanks a lot.

[maryadkins]

I would find support for (A) in the following lines:

Line 21: "evolving musical style" (Evolving means changing over time)
Lines 33 - 34: "pushed those unstable harmonies...next inevitable step" ("Inevitable" is a key word here. It was coming! That's enough info to call it "natural")
Lines 39 - 41: "developed...a new system of order to nontonal music" (He is applying a new approach to an existing thing)

Of the other five answer choices:

(B) is contracted by the lines above...if anything, the phases are at least explicable because the author explains them.

The rest mischaracterize the progression for the same reason (lines above).

Hope this helps!

[ohthatpatrick]

I thought this was a weird question too, when I first saw it.

It didn't seem like there were solid line references for "natural progression" OR "inexplicable departure".

However, of those two, I definitely default more towards 'natural progression'. If you're describing a natural progression, you wouldn't feel it as necessary to pepper in little remarks that "things are normal".

If you're describing an inexplicable departure, you're definitely going to convey some attitude that things are weird.

The question stem contains keywords: "the relationships between the three styles in which Schoenberg wrote".

Where did we see "three styles in which Schoenberg wrote"? Ouch, over the course of P2, P3, and P4.

But when do we actually see THOSE WORDS, "three styles"?

23-25. This line says "this is true" of the three different styles. What is true?

Lines 20-23 describe Schoenberg as working in an ever changing style that sprung from tradition but kept pushing into new territory.

Because Schoenberg's 'defining essence', according to these lines, is to keep changing, evolving, and pushing into new territory, the fact that he changes styles from 1st to 2nd to 3rd is not at inexplicable departure, but rather "par for the course" / "status quo for Schoenberg" ... a natural progression.

The move from 1st to 2nd, according to line 34, was "in his view .. the next inevitable step".

The move from 2nd to 3rd involved, according to line 40, "a means of bringing a system of order and stabilizing it" ... that definitely sounds more like a natural progression than an inexplicable departure.

(A) is the correct answer.

[LolaC289]

Patrick's analysis is on point! But I want to contribute to this question a bit more as well.

I think what makes this question hard is, first, the fact that it being a "inference" question, it tend to be the hardest in the set, because they usually require a thorough understanding of the whole passage and the author's attitude, etc. Second, specifically to this one, I think many test takers will overthink about what the question is asking here.

As patrick has mentioned, the question specifically ask us the relationship between the three styles.

On first sight I was like, okay, what relationship......it seems pretty natural, at least for Schoenberg, to develop these three styles.

You can tell this in paragraph 5, the author keep mentioning how Schoenberg"felt that he was a man of destiny", how these changes are"the next inevitable step in the historical development of music", in developing his styles, he "did what he was compelled to express". (Line 33-38) Although this is laid in the fifth paragraph, after the discussion from the change from the first to the second style, it is obvious that in the author's eye, these changes of Schoenberg is pretty consistent.

Also, there seems to be nothing specifically talk about how the first one differs from the second one, or how the second one differs from the third one.

So I chose A at first, pretty unsure, because I think if this is truly how easy this question is, what about answer choices C,D and E? (And here is where the overthinking begins......). I turned around to the three paragraphs, somehow holding the thought that there must be something I have missed in the first round, and found in line 40, "......bringing a new system of order..." and thinking, okay, that must be it, it must be that the third style is different from the second! As a result I change my answer to the wrong one, answer choice C.

Enough about the stupidity. What's wrong about this thinking?

First of all, one single word("new") does not compare to a whole preach from the author, telling us how "inevitable" it was for Schoenberg to go through these changes. (But sometimes certain vital words can twist the whole attitude to another direction, in RC passages).

Second, what is the "new" thing that the author is talking about here? It's specifically talking about the 12-tone technique(line 39)! The fact that a single new technique has been added to a piece of music does not represent "an inexplicable departure from the previous one".

Still, the transformation is consistent and inevitable for Schoenberg! (line 43-45, "as his career progressed, his music became more condensed, more violent......") . It is a consistent progression through and through.

I hope my true experience on overthinking this question to be helpful to you guys so you don't make the same mistake!

(Schoenberg's music is truly difficult...... I kinda feel sympathetic for the critic in the first paragraph.)

[MeganL677]

Excellent explanations above!

Totally agree "natural" can be inferred from "inevitable". They both mean "as one would expect" in this context.
"Evolve" is also a good indicator of gradual development.

It's the opposite of "inexplicable", which means cannot be understood or explained.

I think the LSAT RC frequently plays with the word's exact meaning... So better to have a dictionary at hand