|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
Since Byron's fingers are so short and stubby, he will never [#permalink]
 04 Apr 2004, 09:04
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Since Byron's fingers are so short and stubby, he will never be an outstanding pianist
The statement above is based on which of the following assumptions?
A) the size and shape of fingers are important attributes for a professional musical career
B) piano playing requires long, thin fingers
C) physical characteristics can affect how well one plays the piano
D) Byron is not a particularly able pianist
E) no amount of practice will make a difference in Byron's playing ability
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 42
Location: US
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
B seems correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Location: illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
The debate is between C and E.
The physical characteristics such as long and thin fingers play an important role in determining how well a person plays...
The "key" is "never be a outstanding" ....
In that sense E says that no matter what he does , he will never be a outstanding player. It seems more like a conclusion than an assumption to me.
I will take my chances and go wth C
C is my choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 716
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Can a question get any shorter , at the same time any harder, than
this one? Where did you get this Paul? This is another gem that needs
the understanding of fundamentals of logic.
Anyway, I would choose B.
Reason: In CR, never venture outside the scope of the CR.
Try to be as close to the stem as possible.
Thanks to Anand and Paul for teaching this trick!
Again, Fingers crossed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 35
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
C, yes we have to find out what requires to be an outstanding player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Location: illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Kpadma:
IMO, B is NOT correct, because the argument ONLy says that to BE and OUTSTANDING Player, the fingers should be longer and thinner. But for normal playing it does NOT matter. This is proved by the fact that Byron is able to play the Piano.So to be OUTSTANDING ONLY, the player requires longer and thinner, Otherwise NOT neccessary.
JUST my OPINION.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 180
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Absolutely C
Hmm, actually, I dont like the idea of "physical attributes", that could imply that having short legs is also important. Too general. Had the sentence been more specific, I wouldve stuck with it. E is the answer, imo. The author is assuming that no matter how much Byron practices he wont be an oustanding pianist. In other words, nothing else can make Byron an oustanding pianist. No teachers, music school, or hours of practice. We must exclude all other posibilities. That's my two cents.
_________________
---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with E.
The argument assumes that physicals shortcomings cannot be overcome by practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
monarc wrote: Kpadma:
IMO, B is NOT correct, because the argument ONLy says that to BE and OUTSTANDING Player, the fingers should be longer and thinner. But for normal playing it does NOT matter. This is proved by the fact that Byron is able to play the Piano.So to be OUTSTANDING ONLY, the player requires longer and thinner, Otherwise NOT neccessary.
JUST my OPINION.
Nice Monarc, refuting other people's answer helps better understanding WHY our answer is better than other ones. Great job. OA: C. Anyone up to refute E?
 the latest CR questions I have taken from LSAT. You can see the increased level of difficulty. Very good practice for us all!
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 180
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: monarc wrote: Kpadma:
IMO, B is NOT correct, because the argument ONLy says that to BE and OUTSTANDING Player, the fingers should be longer and thinner. But for normal playing it does NOT matter. This is proved by the fact that Byron is able to play the Piano.So to be OUTSTANDING ONLY, the player requires longer and thinner, Otherwise NOT neccessary.
JUST my OPINION. Nice Monarc, refuting other people's answer helps better understanding WHY our answer is better than other ones. Great job. OA: C. Anyone up to refute E? the latest CR questions I have taken from LSAT. You can see the increased level of difficulty. Very good practice for us all! Hmmm, 
Lesson for many of us, try to stick to the answers that you chose. Now, E is wrong because it is not an underlying assumption. Byron can still improve (keyword) his playing, and the author will not refute this statement. While I still dont think that C is a great answer, it is the best of the worst. Had E stated that: "No amount of practice will make Byron an OUTSTANDING pianist," it would've been the best choice. IMO READ READ READ READ the answer choices properly 
_________________
---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
lvb9th wrote: Paul wrote: monarc wrote: Kpadma:
IMO, B is NOT correct, because the argument ONLy says that to BE and OUTSTANDING Player, the fingers should be longer and thinner. But for normal playing it does NOT matter. This is proved by the fact that Byron is able to play the Piano.So to be OUTSTANDING ONLY, the player requires longer and thinner, Otherwise NOT neccessary.
JUST my OPINION. Nice Monarc, refuting other people's answer helps better understanding WHY our answer is better than other ones. Great job. OA: C. Anyone up to refute E? the latest CR questions I have taken from LSAT. You can see the increased level of difficulty. Very good practice for us all! Hmmm, Lesson for many of us, try to stick to the answers that you chose. Now, E is wrong because it is not an underlying assumption. Byron can still improve (keyword) his playing, and the author will not refute this statement. While I still dont think that C is a great answer, it is the best of the worst. Had E stated that: "No amount of practice will make Byron an OUTSTANDING pianist," it would've been the best choice. IMO READ READ READ READ the answer choices properly "improve" was indeed the key word. Very nice lvb9th 
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Location: montreal
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I would go with A because the assumption is not that ones fingers need to be long and thin, just not short and stubby
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
