Q17 - watching music videos from the 1970s...

[ttunden]

can anyone explain why the correct ac is C? is it because the conclusions are somewhat similar and C also has the timeshift like the stimulus does? i originally chose A because it contradicts like the stimulus does but perhaps the conclusion didnt match since A is too strong.

[bbirdwell]

Great question! First, notice that this is #17, and as such, could very well be the hardest problem in the section. With that in mind, our usual tricks for working these matching problems may only get us down to 2, and then we have to make a close call. It goes without saying that we should attempt to isolate the 2 "contenders" as quickly as possible. First, let's get a good look at the argument's basic elements:

Music videos of the 70s--> impression music of the 70s was synth and punk
This is wrong (conclusion)
b/c videos made by cutting edge

Take a second to consider that structure. How exactly does the reasoning happen? The author says that a certain opinion about a whole era of music is flawed because that opinion is based on a BAD/NARROW SAMPLE (only cutting edge musicians)

I think your approach of using the conclusion to eliminate is a good idea. So if our conclusion is basically "an opinion is misleading," then we can eliminate

(B) "could hardly be improved"
and
(E) "probably be accurate"

Next, we'll have to consider the evidence (something about the samples). This eliminates
(D) "film stock disintegrates" is not an example of a bad sample.

Now, in a few blinks, we're down to (A) and (C).

And now we need a reason to eliminate one. We can eliminate (A) for the reason you suggested: "never be accurate" is not the same as "misleading." And "distorted" is a spot on match for "misleading." That's enough to eliminate (A) and choose (C) right there.

Further, notice how (A) never restricts us to a certain sample AT FIRST. In other words, it just says.... (no matter what) we can't understand pre-press literature.

Compare this with (C), which says IF we only look at CD-ROMS. Notice how that matches the original: IF we only look at music videos.

Therefore (C) has a better conclusion, AND matches the logic:
if we restrict ourselves to a certain sample (videos/CD-ROMs), then we'll have a misleading/distorted opinion about the whole genre (music of the 70s/today's publishing trends).

Hope that helps!

[Gerald]

Here's my take on it. Hope it helps!

PT65, S4, Q17 (Match the Reasoning).

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to that of the argument above?

(A) Our view of pre-printing-press literature can never be accurate, because the surviving works of ancient authors are those that were deemed by copyists most likely to be of interest to future readers.
(B) Our memory of 1960s TV shows could hardly be improved, because so many of the television programs of the era are still rerun today.
(C) Future generations’ understanding of today’s publishing trends will be distorted if they judge by works published in CD-ROM format, since it is primarily publishers interested in computer games that are using CD-ROM.
(D) Our understanding of silent films is incomplete, because few filmmakers of the time realized that the film stock they were using would disintegrate over time.
(E) Our notion of fashion trends will probably be accurate if we rely on TV fashion programs, despite the fact that these programs deliberately select the most outrageous outfits in order to get the viewers’ attention.

(C) is correct.

With match the reasoning questions, we start by finding the core. Then we strip the argument of its subject matter and focus on its structure. Rather than looking for the right answer with the same structure, we’ll eliminate bad answers when we spot conclusion, premises, or structural mismatches.

Here, we’re concluding a view of 70’s music (from music videos) is misleading, because music videos were new and attracted cutting-edge musicians. Our stripped core looks like this:

MV attracted CE --> views based on MV misleading

(A) Has a conclusion mismatch. We’re looking for something being misleading, but this answer says a view could "never be accurate." Eliminate.

(B) Another conclusion mismatch. The conclusion in (B) says our memory "could hardly be improved." That doesn’t sound misleading; it’s the opposite, really. Eliminate.

(D) An incomplete understanding might be a misleading one, but we can eliminate based on a premise mismatch. (D) discusses the failure of filmmakers to realize that film disintegrates. But we needed (D) to say something like, "Silent film does not reflect the general state of drama, because only radicals were drawn to the film format." Eliminate.

(E) An accurate view? No, we want an inaccurate one. Eliminate.

That leaves (C), which concludes that studying CD-ROMs will lead to a distorted understanding. That sounds an awful lot like a "misleading view." The premises also match. CD-ROMs draw people interested in games publishing (as opposed to all kinds of publishers), while music videos drew cutting edge rockers, rather than all musicians. Sounds good! But to be safe, let’s diagram and compare to the original:

CD-ROM attracted CG publishers --> understanding based on CDROM distorted.

MV attracted CE --> views based on MV misleading

Bingo.

[krisk743]

I eliminated C because the conclusion was conditional and the original arguments was not. It was direct. I've gotten a question similar to this wrong for that exact reason, and picking that up this time, now it's wrong. What am I missing