Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 2 · Question 21

Incorrect. Whether she's more or less familiar with other composers is out of scope as to whether being familiar with this one speaks to the likelihood that she's a classical pianist.

Incorrect. This answer isn't as outlandish as it might sound—if you've ever watched a Looney Tune, you can probably identify the works of a composer that you haven't heard of! However, the argument didn't rely on those who haven't heard of a composer not recognizing their works since it independently establishes that most people who are not classically trained pianists can't recognize Schumann's work. This is why we disregarded that statement in our analysis.

Incorrect. The argument talks about the category of classical pianists, which includes those who also play other instruments, so the argument doesn't assume a complete separation between these groups.

Incorrect. While the argument does use classical" a few times, there's no indication that it shifts the meaning of that, so this answer describes a flaw not present in this argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Classical pianist—most—Recognize Schumann's works
Claudette — Recognize Schumann's works
not Classical pianist—most—not Recognize Schumann's works
not Classical pianist—some—not Heard of Schumann
Therefore — Claudette is very likely a classical pianist

Answer Anticipation:
We've got an Errors in Reasoning question that has a lot of quantified statements.

Here, to prove that it's highly likely" that Claudette is a classical pianist, the argument relies on two premises that are negations of each other (remember, if the stimulus presents us with two statements that are negations of each other, then they're both accepted; we can't take the negation):
Classical pianist—most—Recognize Schumann's works
not Classical pianist—most—not Recognize Schumann's works

The other premise about not hearing of Schumann isn't really related to the conclusion, so let's ignore it.

Focusing on those two premises, we can see that the argument essentially says that since Claudette shares a characteristic (recognizing the works of Schumann) with most classical pianists but not most people who aren't classical pianists, she's very likely to be in the former group.

However, that's a bit of a reversal. While we know that most classical pianists recognize Schumann's works, we don't know what percentage of those who recognize her works are classical pianists. Since we're using that characteristic to make a call about Claudette, we'd need to know more about that group.

To dive a bit into how this would play out, let's assume for a second that most classical musicians recognize Schumann's works. There are surely more classical musicians on instruments other than the piano than on the piano (there are a lot of instruments), but there is just as surely significantly more people who aren't classically trained on any instrument. In this case, there are a lot of people out there who are not classical pianists but do recognize Schumann's works—in fact, here, most people who recognize her works aren't classical pianists. This highlights a possibility where it's unlikely that Claudette, even in recognizing Schumann's works, is a classical pianist.

Bringing it back to LSAT—world, this answer tries to apply a quantified statement to a specific case, but it messes it up, so we should consider any answer that addresses quantifiers. If this is all you had prepped going into the answer choices, you should still be okay.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the quantifier flaw. The first premise states that most classical pianists recognize Schumann's work, but the argument treats it as saying that most people who recognize her work are classical pianists—that would allow the conclusion to hold. However, that ignores the possibility that, while most classical pianists recognize these works, the reverse isn't necessarily true.

Key Takeaway:
Most statements aren't reversible. Also, when an Errors in Reasoning question deals in quantifiers, the argument is most likely committing a quantifier flaw. Look for answers that talk about these quantifiers, or about overlapping groups.