Recently, the manuscript of a short musical composition bearing the

Question

Recently, the manuscript of a short musical composition bearing the name of the composer Gianni Fortuna was discovered in a library that was founded in 1661. Some musicologists believe that the piece is actually an arrangement of an original composition by Fortuna’s contemporary Fredryk Bowles, pointing to the fact that the two pieces, which are in the same key, share approximately 85% of the same melody.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion drawn by the musicologists?

(A) There is evidence that Fortuna and Bowles never knew each other personally. 
(B) Fortuna primarily wrote music that was used in religious ceremonies, while Bowles mostly composed music for court dances and festivals.
(C) Fortuna, unlike Bowles, was known to have visited the library in which the work was discovered.
(D) Both compositions have more in common with an earlier piece written by a composer who lived around the same time as Fortuna and Bowles than they have with each other.
(E) The Fortuna piece was meant to be played at a considerably faster tempo than was the Bowles piece.

EMPOWER  gmat    CR Question Pack 2

Question 15: Gianni Fortuna

48 Hour Answer & Explanation Window  
 Earn KUDOS!  Have your explanations evaluated to help boost your learning. Post your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post.

Scroll Down For Official Explanation

◀ Group 3 Question 14  
 ▶ Group 4 Question 16   COMING SOON! 
 ⏏ CR Library Pack 2 Home

Akp880 · Answer

Recently, the manuscript of a short musical composition bearing the name of the composer Gianni Fortuna was discovered in a library that was founded in 1661. Some musicologists believe that the piece is actually an arrangement of an original composition by Fortuna’s contemporary Fredryk Bowles, pointing to the fact that the two pieces, which are in the same key, share approximately 85% of the same melody.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion drawn by the musicologists?

Explanation : lets simplify the argument line by line-

Premise .A manuscript bearing the name of the composer Gianni Fortuna---- discovered in a library--founded in 1661.

Conclusion :Some musicologists believe that the piece is actually an arrangement of an original composition by Fortuna’s contemporary Fredryk Bowles

Stated reason :The two pieces, which are in the same key, share approximately 85% of the same melody.

In order to weaken the conclusion our  main purpose here is to weaken the stated reasoning of musicologists .Lets review each option one by one-

(A) There is evidence that Fortuna and Bowles never knew each other personally.
 Incorrect . Stated reasoning is still not harmed.The conclusion drawn by the musicologists is not weakened.

(B) Fortuna primarily wrote music that was used in religious ceremonies, while Bowles mostly composed music for court dances and festivals.
 Irrelevant.  Type of music is not our concern here.

(C) Fortuna, unlike Bowles, was known to have visited the library in which the work was discovered.
 Incorrect  .Stated reasoning is still not harmed.The conclusion drawn by the musicologists is not weakened.They may be correct in drawing the conclusion.

(D) Both compositions have more in common with an earlier piece written by a composer who lived around the same time as Fortuna and Bowles than they have with each other.
 Bingo! this was what we wanted.An alternate reasoning for the similarity in both the compositions.The conclusion drawn by the musicologists will be weakened if this is true.
 
(E) The Fortuna piece was meant to be played at a considerably faster tempo than was the Bowles piece.
 Incorrect . Argument says there were 85% similarities so the remaining 15% differences may account this option.The conclusion drawn by the musicologists is still not weakened.

Hence D is the correct answer.

prateekchugh · Answer

Recently, the manuscript of a short musical composition bearing the name of the composer Gianni Fortuna was discovered in a library that was founded in 1661. Some musicologists believe that the piece is actually an arrangement of an original composition by Fortuna’s contemporary Fredryk Bowles, pointing to the fact that the two pieces, which are in the same key, share approximately 85% of the same melody.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion drawn by the musicologists?

Explanation: lets simplify the argument line by line-

Premise.A manuscript bearing the name of the composer Gianni Fortuna---- discovered in a library--founded in 1661.

Conclusion:Some musicologists believe that the piece is actually an arrangement of an original composition by Fortuna’s contemporary Fredryk Bowles

Stated reason:The two pieces, which are in the same key, share approximately 85% of the same melody.

In order to weaken the conclusion our main purpose here is to weaken the stated reasoning of musicologists.Lets review each option one by one-

(A) There is evidence that Fortuna and Bowles never knew each other personally.
Incorrect.Stated reasoning is still not harmed.The conclusion drawn by the musicologists is not weakened.

(B) Fortuna primarily wrote music that was used in religious ceremonies, while Bowles mostly composed music for court dances and festivals.
Irrelevant.Type of music is not our concern here.

(C) Fortuna, unlike Bowles, was known to have visited the library in which the work was discovered.
Incorrect.Stated reasoning is still not harmed.The conclusion drawn by the musicologists is not weakened.They may be correct in drawing the conclusion.

(D) Both compositions have more in common with an earlier piece written by a composer who lived around the same time as Fortuna and Bowles than they have with each other.
Bingo! this was what we wanted.An alternate reasoning for the similarity in both the compositions.The conclusion drawn by the musicologists will be weakened if this is true.

(E) The Fortuna piece was meant to be played at a considerably faster tempo than was the Bowles piece.
Incorrect.Argument says there were 85% similarities so the remaining 15% differences may account this option.The conclusion drawn by the musicologists is still not weakened.

Hence D is the correct answer.

Therefore Weaken the argument. Correct (E) The Fortuna piece was meant to be played at a considerably faster tempo than was the Bowles piece. We do not care about the speed of the song, we care about the composition. Who composed it first? Incorrect

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Official Explanation:

Recently, the manuscript of a short musical composition bearing the name of the composer Gianni Fortuna was discovered in a library that was founded in 1661. Some musicologists believe that the piece is actually an arrangement of an original composition by Fortuna’s contemporary Fredryk Bowles, pointing to the fact that the two pieces, which are in the same key, share approximately 85% of the same melody.
 
 Which of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion drawn by the musicologists? 
 
 (A) There is evidence that Fortuna and Bowles never knew each other personally.  
 (B) Fortuna primarily wrote music that was used in religious ceremonies, while Bowles mostly composed music for court dances and festivals. 
 (C) Fortuna, unlike Bowles, was known to have visited the library in which the work was discovered. 
 (D) Both compositions have more in common with an earlier piece written by a composer who lived around the same time as Fortuna and Bowles than they have with each other. 
 (E) The Fortuna piece was meant to be played at a considerably faster tempo than was the Bowles piece.

Question Type:   Weaken
  Boil It Down:   Library found a musical composition with Fortuna’s name on it, but some musicologists think it is just a different arrangement of a piece originally written by his contemporary, Fredryk Bowles. 
  Goal:    Find the option that best weakens the argument that the piece was actually written by Bowles.

Analysis:

This question asks us to weaken the conclusion.
 
 Conclusion:  The piece in question is actually an arrangement of an original piece by Bowles; it is not an original work by Fortuna.
 
 Evidence:  The pieces are very similar. They are in the same key and their melodies are about 85% similar.
 
 Assumption:  The two pieces aren’t based on another work. If this were not true – if they WERE based on another work – the conclusion would be weakened.
 
Choice D strongly suggests that the two pieces were actually based on someone else’s work. Therefore, Fortuna’s piece was not based on an original work by Bowles, weakening the conclusion.

(A) There is evidence that Fortuna and Bowles never knew each other personally. 
 Fortuna’s piece could have been an arrangement of Bowles’ piece even if the two men didn’t meet. This does not weaken the conclusion.

(B) Fortuna primarily wrote music that was used in religious ceremonies, while Bowles mostly composed music for court dances and festivals.
 The musical use might have been different, but that doesn’t mean that Fortuna’s piece could not have been based on Bowles’.

(C) Fortuna, unlike Bowles, was known to have visited the library in which the work was discovered.
 This is completely irrelevant to the argument. Though the library is mentioned in the argument, it does not affect the logic of the argument.

(D) Both compositions have more in common with an earlier piece written by a composer who lived around the same time as Fortuna and Bowles than they have with each other.
 This is the correct choice. It denies the assumption given above, and denying an assumption will always weaken a conclusion. If both pieces were based on a third piece, then Fortuna’s piece was not based on Bowles’.

(E) The Fortuna piece was meant to be played at a considerably faster tempo than was the Bowles piece.
 One piece could have been based on the other even if the tempos were different. The conclusion does not depend on the two pieces being identical.

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Recently, the manuscript of a short musical composition bearing the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Recently, the manuscript of a short musical composition bearing the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards