mun23 wrote:
CharuKapoor wrote:
The attribution of the choral work Lacrime to the composer Pescard (1400-1474) has been regarded as tentative, since it was based on a single treatise from the early 1500s that named Pescard as the composer. Recently, several musical treaties from the late 1500s have come to light, all of which name Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae. Unfortunately, these newly discovered treatises lend no support to the attribution of Lacrimae to Pescard, since____________.
(A) the treatise from the early 1500s misidentifies the composers of some of the musical works it considers
(B) the author of the treatise from the early 1500s had no very strong evidence on which to base the identification Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae
(C) there are works that can conclusively be attributed to Pescard that are cultivated specifically for the seed they produce rather than for their leaves or roots not even mentioned in the treatise from the early 1500s
(D) the later treatises probably had no source for their attribution other than the earlier treatise
(E) no known treatises from the 1600s identify Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae
I picked B.Why D is correct?Need detail explanation
I must say tough question. D is correct.
This is
FLAW OF REASONING question. This is not weaken question. The basic difference between the two is that Weaken questions accept "New" information, but Flaw questions do not. In flaw question, you mus base solely on Fact.
ANALYSIS:Premise: a single treatise from the early 1500s that named Pescard as the composer.
Premise: Recently, several musical treaties from the late 1500s name Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae
Sub-conclusion: The attribution of the choral work Lacrime to the composer Pescard (1400-1474) has been regarded as tentative.
Main-Conclusion: newly discovered treatises lend no support to the attribution of Lacrimae to Pescard
Why? what if the later treatises and earlier treaties used the
SAME source for their attribution.
It means the contribution of the later treaties is the same as that of earlier treaties. The later does not provide more evidences to support the sub-conclusion. That's why the sub-conclusion fails.
D clearly states that.
@Mun23:
Why D is correct? You can refer to my explanation above.
Why B is wrong?
B says: "the author of the treatise from the early 1500s had no very strong evidence on which to base the identification Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae".
"No very strong" does not mean "weak" evidence. Moreover, if the later treaties used different source for their contribution, even stronger evidences, the sub-conclusion is still correct.
Hope it helps you a little bit.
_________________
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.
Choosing correct answers is not as important as explaining why other answers are wrong. Keep learning everyday!
close
50% (02:50) correct
