Q4 - The reason J.S. Bach is remembered is not

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Bach is remembered not because he had a high success rate of writing gems, but because he was just super prolific.
Evidence: He wrote more than a thousand pieces, so he was bound to have SOME great pieces in there that would survive the ages.

Answer Anticipation:
There are two conclusions, so we could weaken either move. We don't have to accept that "if you write a thousand pieces, at least a few will be timeless classics". We could easily weaken that argument with an example of another composer who wrote a thousand pieces but does NOT have any timeless classics. We could also attack the conclusion that "Bach is famous because we wrote a ton, not because he had a high success rate" by saying that a high ratio of his thousand compositions are outstanding compositions.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES, this potentially works. Comparable era, comparable number of compositions (even more), and yet their prolific composing did NOT result in being remembered. This hurts the author's conclusion and makes it seem more like Bach is remembered because of QUALITY, not quantity.

(B) This doesn't weaken because the author was never saying that "ALL composers are like Bach; they're all famous for high numbers, not high quality" This choice attacks that idea, but the author never offered that idea.

(C) This strengthens.

(D) We don't need to know an exact number. "More than a thousand" definitely establishes the point that we wrote an awful lot.

(E) This is just like (B). This doen't weaken. It's fine if SOME composers are known for a high ratio of oustanding pieces. The author is only arguing that Bach is not one of them.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a causal argument, since the author is saying "the cause of Bach's fame is how many songs he wrote, not an ability to reliably write good music". We can undermine a causal conclusion by either
1. Providing a DIFFERENT REASON for the background fact (in this case, a different reason why Bach is remembered) or
2. Undermining the plausibility of the AUTHOR'S REASON.

Our correct answer does #2. This is a common form of Weakening causal arguments -- you show the supposed cause (other composers who ALSO wrote over 1000 songs) happening without the supposed effect (being remembered for generations).

#officialexplanation