Reading comp PrepTest 104 · Section 2 · Question 6

Passage

Questions 1-6  .        The career of trumpeter Miles Davis was one of the  . most astonishingly productive that jazz Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Humanities


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's conclusion (Oddly, Miles Davis's incredible jazz does not get its due)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Davis had one of the most astonishingly productive careers (first sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • The impatience and restlessness in his work caused many stylistic turns and critics to turn on Davis (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "the most astonishingly productive" (first sentence); "his genius has never received its due" (second sentence); "ever more innovative sounds" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's support (Davis moving from bebop to West Coast cool jazz)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Davis's group in NYC making West Coast cool jazz, unlike bebop music, featured ensembles as much so, or more, than solos and slowed down tempos (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "first of many … surprises" (first sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's support (Davis again switched to a new, less-restrictive style in late 1950s)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • Unlike his West Coast cool jazz, in his next period allowed soloists to determine their own melodies instead of following the old restrictive pattern of chord changes (first through third sentences)
      • This new sound was similar to classical orchestral music; no matter how similar the recordings are to jazz, the instruments and rhythms are muted (last sentence)
    • Author attitude: "characteristic" (sentence one); "unified and integrated" (fourth sentence); "always understated … seem muted" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's support (Davis began adding electronic instruments and editing improvisations in 1960s, angering critics)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Unlike his last era, Davis began using rock-style beats, electronic instruments, and heavy improvisations, creating a jagged sound scape (second through third sentences)
      • Similar to rock groups and movie editing, Davis had musicians improvise in-studio, then edited the tapes to make the finished product (third and fourth sentences)
      • But this was unlike jazz lovers' expectations (fifth and last sentences)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • Davis's request that Hancock play electric, not acoustic, piano caused consternation among jazz purists (second sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "once again" (first sentence); "jagged soundscapes" (third sentence); "fierce polemics" (last sentence); "continued to belittle his contributions" (last sentence)

Paragraph 5

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's interpretation of critical backlash (Davis's evolution made it hard for critics to rank/appreciate him)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • Fear of Davis's exploration of possibilities probably led to the intense reactions against him (first sentence)
      • The fact that Davis's career endured, didn't die young, recorded consistently, and didn't dwell in any one niche caused the critics to find ranking Davis into their narrow aesthetic hierarchies (last sentence)
    • Comparison
      • Davis did the same thing all jazz explorers have done — trying to make his own style (second sentence)
    • Author attitude: "probably underlies the intensity" (first sentence); "broadening of possibilities that he exemplified" (first sentence); "ironically" (second sentence); "find it difficult to definitively rank Davis in the aesthetic hierarchy to which they clung" (last sentence)

Main Point: Davis's constant evolution made it difficult for critics to compare his career to other jazz musicians, and thus his genius never received its due.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 3 (P1, S3) - Criticisms and defense introduced

P5, S3 - Author's final defense

Meta-Structure?

Rebutting Critics: This passage utilizes a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure*. In such a passage, the author generallys presents criticisms of the subject matter, before mounting a defense against those critiques. Here, the author mentions that Miles Davis, despite his proliferous "genius," was "anathema" (someone who is intensely loathed) to critics (P1, S1-3). The author ultimately defends Davis against these criticisms in the final paragraph. Davis was doing what jazz explorers always did, he just did it for so long and at such a high level that critics had trouble pigeonholing him into their narrow aesthetic rankings (P5, S2-3).

The main point in a Rebutting Critics passage is generally the author's central defense of the subject matter. We could look to the last sentence to help us answer the main point, or to our summary of the author's defense ("Davis's constant evolution made it difficult for critics to compare his career to other jazz musicians, and thus his genius never received its due.")

*You may have concluded this is another Critical Meta-Structure passage, like a Criticizing a Viewpoint or Correcting the Record. You may have even thought this had a Descriptive Meta-Structure, like Question/Answer (Q: Why wasn't Davis appreciated more? A: Critics had trouble ranking him). You may have even gotten a bit out there and thought of this as a Paradox/Resolution passage since Davis's genius and the critical backlash is a discrepancy that the author resolves in the last paragraph. These would all work just fine for this passage. Remember, there's no one right answer when it comes to Meta-Structures. That said, we don't think that Innovative Subject or Importance of Subject are great fits for this passage. The author wants to do more than just show why Davis is innovative or important — the author wants to rebut the critics' position.

Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. No surprise there, since the author is constantly comparing one era of Davis to another. The author also compares Davis's 1960s approach to movie directors and rock bands. The author also compares Davis artistic restlessness to other jazz visionaries. The questions will likely ask about one or two of these comparisons, so highlighting the comparative words should help us locate the relevant details.

Last Thoughts?

Did you notice how many author's attitude words we highlighted/underlined? Get ready for some Tone questions. We'll also get some Minor Point or Application questions about all the different eras of Miles Davis. But highlighting the minor Meta-Structures will help us with those. Hey, if highlighting author's attitude and minor Meta-Structures is cool, consider us Miles Davis.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Humanities

Strategy Overview

Review the author's explanation for the way Davis is regarded by critics, determine weaknesses in that claim to anticipate how to weaken it, and select the answer choice that makes the claim less convincing

Answer Anticipation

We'll approach Weaken questions in Reading Comprehension in a very similar manner as we would in Logical Reasoning. We can review the excerpt from the passage, just like we'd carefully read an argument in LR. We'll then interrogate the claim for any weaknesses, as the correct answer on both RC and LR will probably weaken the claim by exploiting a problem. Additionally, causation flaws are commonplace on Weaken questions in both RC and LR, so we should be especially mindful of those.The explanation referred to here is actually the main point of the passage: that Davis's constant evolution made it difficult for critics to compare his career to other jazz musicians, and thus his genius never received its due. This is a causal claim (Davis's constant evolution caused critics to have trouble ranking Davis, which caused the critics to underappreciate Davis).The most common way to weaken a causal claim on the LSAT is by undermining the correlation. In this case, the correct answer might show other instances in which a jazz musician acted like Davis and kept changing styles but the critics gave the musician their due. This technique is often called "cause without the effect." Alternatively, the correct answer could show an effect produced without the supposed cause preceding it. In this case, that might involve critics not giving a jazz musician their due, even though the musician did not constantly change styles (in other words, a musician with a standard, unevolving jazz career not being appreciated by critics). This technique is often called "effect without the cause." Either would undermine the correlation linking the constant evolution of Davis to the lack of appreciation by critics .: Or, the correct answer could present a persuasive alternate cause for the critics' failure to appreciate Davis. The correct answer might say that Davis's musicianship got worse the more he changed his style, or something like that.That said, many things could feasibly weaken the author's explanation, so we should keep an open mind as we progress through the answer choices. We'll start by asking ourselves, "Does this make the author's explanation less convincing?"

Answer choices

  1. A
    Many jazz musicians who Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this make the author's explanation less convincing?

    No. In fact, this may strengthen, rather than weaken, the author's explanation of why critics did not admire Davis. A specialist, by definition, tends to focus on just one thing, unlike Davis. Critics appreciating a jazz musician specializing in improvisation (which is considered a cornerstone of jazz, no less) would strengthen the correlation between critical appreciation and jazz specialization, strengthening the author's claim that the critics didn't like Davis because Davis didn't specialize in just one style.

  2. B
    Many jazz musicians whose Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this make the author's explanation less convincing?

    It sure does, and it does so in a way that we anticipated. This is an example of the author's cause without the author's effect, which weakens the author's explanation. If there is a musician who, like Davis, radically changed their styles throughout their career, and still being admired by critics, it would weaken the author's argument that it was precisely because Davis radically changed his style that he was not admired by critics. After all, this example would show that critics are willing to appreciate a musician who switches up their style, suggesting that there must be some other reason why critics didn't appreciate Davis.

  3. C
    Several jazz musicians who Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this make the author's explanation less convincing?

    Similar to answer choice (A), a jazz musician focusing on one instrument and being admired by critics would strengthen, and not weaken, the author's explanation. Critics appreciating a jazz musician specializing in electronic instruments would strengthen the correlation between critical appreciation and jazz specialization, strengthening the author's claim that the critics didn't like Davis because Davis didn't specialize in just one style.

    The tricky thing about this answer choice is that we are told that Davis's innovation of using electronic instruments in the late 1960s caused consternation among the jazz purists of the time (P4, S2). But the author does not say that critics took issue with Davis's use of electronic instruments. (We don’t know that these critics were also purists, in other words.) Rather, the author states critics took issue with Davis's constant stylistic changes.

  4. D
    The jazz innovators who Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this make the author's explanation less convincing?

    Nope. In fact, the author says that because Davis has a long career, critics had trouble ranking him and consequently failed to appreciate his genius (P5, S3). So, this answer choice corroborates the author's argument. If critics tend to hold innovators with brief careers in the highest regard, that would support the author's claim that critics didn't like Davis because he consistently evolved over a long period of time.

  5. E
    Jazz critics are known Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this make the author's explanation less convincing?

    It doesn't seem to, but let's make sure we understand what is being said before we decide. If jazz critics appreciate musicality over technique, would it make the author's explanation that Davis's constant changing led to critical underappreciation? Nope. The only way it would is if Davis's technique was bad, and that was the real reason critics didn't appreciate him. However, there is no support in the passage for the idea that Davis's technique was lacking. So, this answer choice would not weaken the author's explanation.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 7%
  2. B Credited 83%
  3. C 2%
  4. D 3%
  5. E 4%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion