A musicologist doing research in an early music archive in London has

None of the options (including the correct one) makes sense to me.
A says "Many songs published in the early 17th century were composed by 16th century composers." Doesn't it actually strengthen the argument that as Suggs also belonged to 16th century, he might have actually written it?

A:Many songs published in the early 17th century were composed by 16th century composers.
" atypical of songs written by other 17th century composers"...so these songs might have been written by composers in 16th Century that can't be use to support his point

Many songs published in the early 17th century were composed by 16th century composers.
The only reasoning that Author gave is that the phrasing of the melody is typical of Suggs' work and atypical of songs written by other 17th century composers.The reasoning can be strengthened only if Suggs work was unique and original i.e not inspired from others. But what if the Sugg work itself was inspired from others and the original work inspired many other composers also ? Then the authors reasoning will fail

Sir

I am still not understanding why is A correct here- as arguments clearly mention - PRODUCED IN 17TH CENTURY, REASON OF BELIEF MELODY OF SNUGGS WORK BUT ATYPICAL OF OTHER 17TH CENTURY COMPOSER.
SO OPTION CONFIRMS THAT - SONG PRODUCED IN 17TH CENTURY WERE COMPOSED IN 16TH CENTURY Therefore it could be composed by SNUGG.

Is extreme word MANY and 16th cnetury composers - generalizing the point made in the argument -stating it can be any composed by any 16th century composer and not certainly snugg.

Argument :
A musicologist doing research in an early music archive in London has come across a song published in the early 17th century that he believes was composed by the songwriter John Suggs (1619 - 1670),

As mentioned in the question stem , John Suggs lived 1619 - 1670. 16xx is actually 17th century.So, John was born in early 17th century and cannot be a 16th century composer.

Why A is correct :
Many songs published in the early 17th century were composed by 16th century composers.
The only reasoning that Author gave is that the phrasing of the melody is typical of Suggs' work and atypical of songs written by other 17th century composers.The reasoning can be strengthened only if Suggs work was unique and original i.e not inspired from others. But what if the Sugg work itself was inspired from others and the original work inspired many other composers also ? Then the authors reasoning will fail

Teacher,

The argument also assumes that musicologist also knows about much of sugg's work and its style.

In light of this assumption, option D can also be a weakener.

Please correct my reasoning

No, it doesn't. Look at the argument again:

"The reason for the musicologist's belief is that the phrasing of the melody is typical of Suggs' work and atypical of songs written by other 17th century composers."

The argument doesn't say that the musicologist believes that the phrasing is similar to Suggs'... It says that the musicologist believes it is written by Suggs because the phrasing IS typical of Suggs' work. So it is given to be true that the phrasing is typical of Suggs' work.

Also note that (D) says "The musicologist is not familiar with ALL of Suggs' music."
This doesn't make a very strong case against the musicologist's knowledge. He may not know ALL of Suggs' work but he may know most of it. He may still be considered an expert.

Hi karishma,
I read the Q first time and was convinced with reasoning for A, so no Questions on that..
But the point which struck me the time was going through the para was word 'EARLY 17th century"...
mr john suggs, a hypothetical name I believe, was born in 1619. Although not specified anywhere about the decades in early , mid and late century, the early part should be first 25-30 years of the century. So, logically, mr john would be only 10-15 years when the poem was published. Wouldn't it be slightly early for him to start publishing/ writing poems.

again its not finding faults, the Q is perfect in reasoning. He could have been born slightly earlier,say 1602 or so, if its a hypothetical name.

no i dont think its too early. check this list out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _prodigies

The right choice should say something against the song being typical of Sugg or say something against song being atypical of 17th century songs.

Choice A says songs published in 17th century are composed in 16th century. So song attributed to Sugg is typical of 16th century or in other words 17th century songs.

A musicologist doing research in an early music archive in London has come across a song published in the early 17th century that he believes was composed by the songwriter John Suggs (1619 - 1670), though Suggs' name is not given on the song sheet. The reason for the musicologist's belief is that the phrasing of the melody is typical of Suggs' work and atypical of songs written by other 17th century composers.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument made by the musicologist?

A. Many songs published in the early 17th century were composed by 16th century composers.......This is the only choice that weakens the argument.
B. Publishers in the 17th century sometimes did not properly credit the composers of the songs they published.........whether they credited or not does no explain why it is Sugg's work or not.
C. The harmonies of the song are consistent with those used by Suggs and other 17th century songwriters.........This is a strengthener. Opposite
D. The musicologist is not familiar with all of Suggs' music...........all plays the spoilsport here driving the choice to extremity.
E. Several 18th century composers were deeply influenced by Suggs' melodic phrasing..........this refers to effect after the publishing the document. OFS

Hi Karishma,

Option A- implies that the song might have been written in another century. but this is not a must.

Notice that option C works on that same logic.

Option C p implies that another parameter that characterize the song is a possible indicator that it has been written by someone else. This is a possible weakener as well since it might weaken the argument.

Hence, i find this question flawed

Im on the same page as you are. I was thinking and thinking for a long time, and finaly voted for C, because A talks about MANY, and here the assumption is that this particular song is in the group of many, and MANY meanas not "0" or anything from 1 to the end.

at option C it talks particularly about the song in question, here says that the harmonies of the song are consistent with Suggs AND OTHER 17 century songwriter,
so this infact beats the premise that it is typical for songs of other writers. what can be more weakener than to refute the premise.

or bottom line is this question needs revision by the authors.

Note what a typical songwriter does - create lyrics and melody of the song.

(C) The harmonies of the song are consistent with those used by Suggs and other 17th century songwriters.
Option (C) talks about the harmony - the notes that support the melody - of the song. We are not discussing the harmonies, who creates harmonies, which songwriters use which harmonies etc. The argument talks about the songwriters only.

Hence, (C) is irrelevant to our question.

Option E can be understood as, People were influenced by sugg and used his style of writing.
So the found writing is not of sugg's.

Even E is weakening.
Where am i going wrong ?

Note what a typical songwriter does - create lyrics and melody of the song.

(C) The harmonies of the song are consistent with those used by Suggs and other 17th century songwriters.
Option (C) talks about the harmony - the notes that support the melody - of the song. We are not discussing the harmonies, who creates harmonies, which songwriters use which harmonies etc. The argument talks about the songwriters only.

Hence, (C) is irrelevant to our question.[/quote]

Hi Karishma,

This is what I think. First I cleared up what the term musicology refers. So by definition from Dictionary.com it is "the scholarly or scientific study of music, as in historical research, musical theory, or the physical nature of sound. So in fact the musicologist is studying the musical part of the song. Now Harmony is when two or notes are buduled together and they produce a harmony, typical example is the cords of guitar, A-dur, A - mol, C D F and so on. So a composer is very often to incoprorate his harmonies in more than one song and that becomes his line or trade mark sort to say About the MElody. well that is single notes played one after another makes teh song melody, that is what you remmeber of the song and sing along. So HArmony is bunch of notes played together and MElody is one after another. . Another point is that I think the musicologust is studying the musical part of the song and not the lyrics of the song.
Next from the question stem we get "A musicologist doing research in an early music archive in London has come across a song published in the early 17th century that he believes was composed by the songwriter John Suggs (1619 - 1670), though Suggs' name is not given on the song sheet.
Here if someone is compsing a song it means that he writes the music of the song, he is the composer of the music and textwriter does the lyrics of the song. a songwriter writes the notes for the song but not neccessarly the lyrics. By the way we have songs without lyrics. NExt point if someone uses the same melody for more than one song that will be pretty much the same song, or is someone else uses the melody that will be a Plagiat. But every song usess the harmoies known to the whole world A-dur, A - mol, C D F and so on, and every musician knows what A-dur means and which 3 notes are used to produce the harmony.
So if Suggs is known for making songs from lets say 4 harmonies than we can assume that is his song, but if there are other musicians also using the same 4 harmonis and they are consistent with these harmonies than we can not say that he is the composer, it might be someone else too.
So this is how C wekaens the argument, some otehr comosers did use the harmonies and were consistent with those harmonies.

A is also a weakener but C can not be discarded, that is why I suggested to revise the question

Note what a typical songwriter does - create lyrics and melody of the song.

(C) The harmonies of the song are consistent with those used by Suggs and other 17th century songwriters.
Option (C) talks about the harmony - the notes that support the melody - of the song. We are not discussing the harmonies, who creates harmonies, which songwriters use which harmonies etc. The argument talks about the songwriters only.

Hence, (C) is irrelevant to our question.[/quote]

Hi,

Thank you for your response.

the dictionary definition of melody is "the principal part in a harmonic composition".

Consequently, Harmony (according to wikipedia) is defined as "the use of simultaneous pitches (tones, notes), or chords"

notes/tones/chords->Melody->Harmony

Obviously, if we were to change the melody and the harmony would have stayed the same this will negate the core definition, since the melody is "the principal part" of the harmony.

Hence, if the harmony was changed, it must follow that the melody was changed, and so the argument is weakened.

Would appreciate your feedback

"melody" - dictionary.com - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/melody
"harmony - wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony