Q9 - Stated Fact v. Conclusion?

[alexander.atkins]

I chose Answer A, but in reviewing the correct answer my assumption is that Answer A is more of a stated fact that the Musicologist bases his whole discussion around, as opposed to his conclusion. Correct?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great question alexander.atkins!

For main conclusion questions, it's a good idea to get a strong sense of the role of each piece of the argument to identify where the conclusion is. Once the conclusion is isolated, we want to stay as close to the meaning as possible.

Here, the argument can be broken down like this:

PREMISES:
Rule: classification = mechanical action through which music produced
Fact: Piano strings make the sound by vibrating.
Fact: Hammer strikes make the strings vibrate.
CONCLUSION:
Piano = properly called percussion, not string.

When in doubt, use the "therefore test"! Does it make more sense to say:

The piano is properly called a percussion instrument, therefore the classification is based on the mechanical action.

OR

The classification is based on the mechanical action, therefore the piano is properly called a percussion instrument.

The latter makes more sense! The rule about classification supports the counter-intuitive idea that pianos are percussion.

(E) is a solid paraphrase of this conclusion!


Inconcludable!
(A) This sounds similar to the rule that serves as support for the conclusion. Also "should be"? The rule simply stated what the classification was, not what it should be.
(B) Again, this sounds similar to the rule about classification, which is a premise, but has the same problem as (A) does.
(C) The author never mentions what some people do!
(D) This is a direct contradiction of the argument, which says that a piano is properly called percussion!


Please let me know if completely answers your question!