The spacing of the four holes on a fragment of a bone flute

[resolehtmai]

Got this question in manhattan blog & also in GMATPrep, Here's the link:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/20/attacking-critical-reasoning-problems-part-2-role-playing-with-critical-reasoning/

The spacing of the four holes on a fragment of a bone flute excavated at a Neanderthal campsite is just what is required to play the third through sixth notes of the diatonic scale" the seven-note musical scale used in much of Western music since the Renaissance. Musicologists therefore hypothesize that the diatonic musical scale was developed and used thousands of years before it was adopted by Western musicians.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the hypothesis?
(A) Bone flutes were probably the only musical instrument made by Neanderthals.

(B) No musical instrument that is known to have used a diatonic scale is of an earlier date than the flute found at the Neanderthal campsite.

(C) The flute was made from a cave-bear bone and the campsite at which the flute fragment was excavated was in a cave that also contained skeletal remains of cave bears.

(D) Flutes are the simplest wind instrument that can be constructed to allow playing a diatonic scale.

(E) The cave-bear leg bone used to make the Neanderthal flute would have been long enough to make a flute capable of playing a complete diatonic scale.

OA:E

In my opinion, D is also a strengthener. Could someone explain why D is wrong?

[RonPurewal]

(d) is wrong because it's irrelevant. We don't care whether or not a simpler instrument exists.
We're only interested in flutes, because we found (pieces of) a flute at the digging site.

What did you like about that choice? I.e., why did you think a comparison with other instruments would be relevant?

[resolehtmai]

For me D and E were equally wrong.
I chose D because i thought that since flutes are the simplest instrument that can play diatonic scale, it increases the likelihood that pre-historic people might have developed the scale as stated in the argument. coz if its the simplest, probably someone has already done it.

but how can E be correct? Just because a bone is long enough to play diatonic scale doesnt mean that neandarthals actually did it. If the bone is long enough to play baseball doesn't mean that neandarthals actually did play baseball right?
I may apply similar reasoning to D.Just because something is the simplest,doesnt mean people did it. but this is quiet unlikely as compared to E.
Please suggest where I get wrong.

[RonPurewal]

For me D and E were equally wrong.
I chose D because i thought that since flutes are the simplest instrument that can play diatonic scale, it increases the likelihood that pre-historic people might have developed the scale as stated in the argument. coz if its the simplest, probably someone has already done it.

Not really. In fact, "primitive" devices are very often not simple. (Think about a 100-year-old sewing machine, or a fountain pen, versus today's much more simple and streamlined versions of each.)

But, more importantly, you're losing sight of the point here. The point is to support the idea in the passage.

Let's say the flute is not the simplest instrument that does xxxxx, AND let's use your assumption that "simplest = first". In that case, then, the simpler instruments would have been around even earlier than the neanderthal camps!

In other words, if you assume that earliest = simplest, then the opposite of this choice would actually support the argument even more.
Not what you want.

(The assumption is invalid in the first place, but I'm trying to show that, even with your assumption, this choice still doesn't do what it's supposed to do.)

[RonPurewal]

but how can E be correct? Just because a bone is long enough to play diatonic scale doesnt mean that neandarthals actually did it. If the bone is long enough to play baseball doesn't mean that neandarthals actually did play baseball right?

Sure, but that's irrelevant. All you're saying here is that choice (E) doesn't prove that the argument is true. I.e., you're saying "this still could be false."

You're right. It doesn't prove the argument. But that's why these are "strengthen"/"support" questions, NOT "establish" or "prove".
Similarly, the correct answers to "weaken" questions DO NOT destroy or disprove arguments. They just weigh against them.

--

[RonPurewal]

Here -- Think as though you're on a jury. People on juries know that you don't have to prove things; you just need strong evidence.

This argument is like the following:
Victim X was shot while sitting in his car, even though the car's windows are made of "bulletproof" glass. The bullets match the model of gun owned by Suspect Y. Therefore, Suspect Y probably shot Victim X.

Okay.

Choice (D) is like
Suspect Y's gun is the simplest model that uses that particular kind of bullets.
You can see why this is not a thing. "Simplest" isn't even the issue -- it could be cheapest, or most efficient, or most stylish, or easiest to buy on the black market, or whatever. Doesn't matter. It doesn't connect the gun to the crime.
Similarly, choice (D) doesn't connect the bone to the music. At least not any more than those two are already connected.

Choice (E) is like
Suspect Y's gun shoots bullets with sufficient velocity to penetrate "bulletproof" glass.
If you are on a jury, this is a pretty darn good piece of evidence. It doesn't absolutely prove that Suspect Y is guilty, but it's certainly another useful piece of the puzzle.

[manhhiep2509]

Hello Ron.

The choice E makes me confused because I do not really understand the idea of the choice.

The cave-bear leg bone used to make the Neanderthal flute would have been long enough to make a flute capable of playing a complete diatonic scale.

I cannot figure out why the choice use "would have been".
In my opinion, it seems that the choice indicates that if the flute played the music scale, then the flute would meet the requirement, i.e. the bone used to make the Neanderthal flute would been long enough.

I consider it a suggestion or a hypothesis. It seems like that A need B to do C, i.e. the bone need to be long enough to help the flute play the music scale. But we still have no idea whether A have B. So that is why I do not find E strengthen the conclusion at all.

More specifically, I will make an example to illustrate my reasoning:

Conclusion: because Jame leaves house everyday by a luxury car, Jame must be the owner of the car.

To strengthen: Jame would have a big bank account to afford the car.

in the case, the choice only say Jame need a lot of money to afford the car. If he really have a lot of money, the choice strengthen the conclusion. However, it is just a suggestion, and in reality we still do not know whether Jame is rich.

Please explain what is wrong with my reasoning.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

I consider it a suggestion or a hypothesis.

*** MOST IMPORTANTLY ***
The answer choices on strengthen/weaken problems will be factual information. (Note the way the questions are asked: "Which of the following, if true...")
If you think of the answer choices as anything other than factual information, then you are probably misinterpreting them.

Here:
If it said something like The bone would have needed to be long enough, then, sure. But, the way it's stated now, it's a definite statement that the bone had adequate length.

Same thing:
I'm really bored on this trip. If I'd asked Alex to come with me, I would be less bored.
If I say "Alex would have been willing to come", then that's a strengthener -- because, well, Alex would have been willing to come on the trip.

Notice the reason why "would have been" is used here. It's not because Alex's willingness is unknown; it's because I didn't actually ask Alex to come on the trip. It's like saying, "If I had done this thing (which I didn't actually do), then this definitely would have happened."
Same thing here. hope that helps.

[manhhiep2509]

I consider it a suggestion or a hypothesis.

*** MOST IMPORTANTLY ***
The answer choices on strengthen/weaken problems will be factual information. (Note the way the questions are asked: "Which of the following, if true...")
If you think of the answer choices as anything other than factual information, then you are probably misinterpreting them.

Here:
If it said something like The bone would have needed to be long enough, then, sure. But, the way it's stated now, it's a definite statement that the bone had adequate length.

Same thing:
I'm really bored on this trip. If I'd asked Alex to come with me, I would be less bored.
If I say "Alex would have been willing to come", then that's a strengthener -- because, well, Alex would have been willing to come on the trip.

Notice the reason why "would have been" is used here. It's not because Alex's willingness is unknown; it's because I didn't actually ask Alex to come on the trip. It's like saying, "If I had done this thing (which I didn't actually do), then this definitely would have happened."
Same thing here. hope that helps.

Thank you Ron. What I get for free from all your explanations in SC and CR questions is more than what I get in my paid courses. I really appreciate your help.

By the way, please take a look at my question.

Notice the reason why "would have been" is used here. It's not because Alex's willingness is unknown; it's because I didn't actually ask Alex to come on the trip. It's like saying, "If I had done this thing (which I didn't actually do), then this definitely would have happened."

As you explained your example, I tried to do so with choice E but I failed because your example has 2 situations but choice E has only one.

Your example:
(1) invite Alex (I did not asked her)
(2) Alex come (would have definitely happened if I had asked her)

choice E:
(1) the flute is long

If it said something like The bone would have needed to be long enough, then, sure. But, the way it's stated now, it's a definite statement that the bone had adequate length

So, in choice E if the flute were long enough to meet the requirements, then what did not happen so that the author uses the verb tense "would have been"?
----
I tried to answer the question as below.

the choice is a hypothesis, so the choice indicates that it is uncertain whether the flute was long enough to meet the requirement.
However, because this is the strengthen question, and my task is not to assess whether the hypothesis is true, but to accept that the hypothesis is true and to assess whether it would strengthen the conclusion.

What is wrong with my explanation?

[RonPurewal]

So, in choice E if the flute were long enough to meet the requirements, then what did not happen so that the author uses the verb tense "would have been"?

Whether the ancient people tried to make a flute long enough to play the whole scale is unknown. (Whether they even knew how, and whether they even knew what a scale was, are also unknowns.)
They aren't things that are definitely false; they're just unknowns. That's enough to justify "would have been".

[RonPurewal]

MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY -- 2 things:

1/
You should NEVER have to nitpick grammar in a CR problem!
If you are disqualifying a choice on the basis of a verb tense, then, well, no. Don't. The wrong answers will be things that are totally wrong (irrelevant, opposite of desired, etc.)

In fact, if your only objection to a particular answer choice is the verb tense, then that's a pretty good indication that you're looking at the correct answer.

2/
If you think a choice is wrong, you'd better have another choice that you think is right!

Here you're complaining about one particular choice, but ... is there another one that you thought was the right answer?

[ZoeZ42]

Hi Ron or other instructors.

it is a open and grant case...

I read the whole threads, and totally understand Ron's explanation.

But I really desire that you can point my fault. and how to distinguish btw D and E if under my reasoning..

following is my reasoning:
The spacing of the four holes on a fragment of a bone flute excavated at a Neanderthal campsite is just what is required to play the third through sixth notes of the diatonic scale—the seven-note musical scale used in much of Western music since the Renaissance. Musicologists therefore hypothesize that the diatonic musical scale was developed and used thousands of years before it was adopted by Western musicians.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the hypothesis?


4 hole fragment flute is required to play 3~6 notes of diatonic scale,
because the flute is fragment, we don't whether the whole fragment can play another musical scale which is overlap 3-6 notes with diatonic scale.
so if strengthen , we need a premise that can prove the whole flute can play diatonic scale


(A) Bone flutes were probably the only musical instrument made by Neanderthals.

flute is only musical instrument, this is cannot prove the whole flute can play diatonic scale -- OUT

(B) No musical instrument that is known to have used a diatonic scale is of an earlier date than the flute found at the Neanderthal campsite.

no musical instrument before can use diatonic scale , this is cannot prove the whole flute can play diatonic scale -- OUT


(C) The flute was made from a cave-bear bone and the campsite at which the flute fragment was excavated was in a cave that also contained skeletal remains of cave bears.

this one only can prove the flute is thousands years old, cannot prove the whole flute can play diatonic scale -- OUT



(D) Flutes are the simplest wind instrument that can be constructed to allow playing a diatonic scale.

seems this is can prove the whole flute can play diatonic scale, it states flutes are the wind instrument that can be played a diatonic scales and the flutes are the simplest instrument --- keep it


(E) The cave-bear leg bone used to make the Neanderthal flute would have been long enough to make a flute capable of playing a complete diatonic scale.

seems this is can prove the whole flute can play diatonic scale ,it states the flute can play a complete diatonic scale --- keep it


when i sunk in D and E,
i fingured out that the fragment of flute is allowed to play 3~6 notes of diatonic scalse, and D mentioned the flutes is allowed to play a diatonic scale.
seems D is bettern than E.

because of the weak require - and - allowed reasoning, i really desire to get help from you.


thanks a lot
have a nice day.
>_~

[RonPurewal]

choice D just says that flutes in general—NOT necessarily the specific flute found at this site—are the simplest instruments that can actually play this kind of scale.

the essential issue here is whether THIS PARTICULAR flute would have been capable of the full diatonic scale.
that issue is still untouched by choice D.

[750plus]

Hello Ron,
Excellent analogy set above. I really like the way you connected the situation with a person sitting on a chair and who has been shot with a gun. It really helps you connect with the idea in the question.
I've one question w.r.t option (B). If there really are no other instruments that used a diatonic scale and is of an earlier date than that of flute, can't we establish that diatonic musical scale must have been developed thousands of years ago?
Thanks

[750plus]

Hello Ron,
Excellent analogy set above. I really like the way you connected the situation with a person sitting on a chair and who has been shot with a gun. It really helps you connect with the idea in the question. Just wanted to thank you for the explanation.
Regards