Music critic: Fewer and fewer musicians are studying classical music,

I was torn between Option E and C and finally chose E ...But OA says C..
What is wrong with E ?
Can someone explain ...­

Its C... since we need to weaken the argument and in order to do so, we need to show alternate way of maintaining the popularity of old music...C gives that alternate reason since people can listen to recordings and still maintain its popularity.

whereas E shows popularity depends on audiences too...for that live performances has to happen and for same young musicians need to learn that genre of music...its more of a strengthener i feel.

Pls let me know if the reasoning is correct and if you like my explanation, help me with Kudos

Music critic: Fewer and fewer musicians are studying classical music, decreasing the likelihood that those with real aptitude for such music will be performing it. Audiences who hear these performances will not appreciate classical music’s greatness and will thus decamp to other genres. So to maintain classical music’s current meager popularity, we must encourage more young musicians to enter the field.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the music critic’s reasoning?
A. Musicians who choose to study classical music do so because they believe they have an aptitude for the music.
B. Classical music’s current meager popularity is attributable to the profusion of other genres of music available to listeners.
C. Most people who appreciate classical music come to do so through old recordings rather than live performances.
D. It is possible to enjoy the music in a particular genre even when it is performed by musicians who are not ideally suited for that genre.
E. The continued popularity of a given genre of music depends in part on the audiences being able to understand why that genre attained its original popularity. - E shows popularity depends on audiences too...for that live performances has to happen and for same young musicians need to learn that genre of music...its more of a strengthener i feel.

@GMATNinja & @GMATNinjaTwo

Hi. I'm really confused with this question. I stuck with B&C, but I think B may be better.
Below is my reasoning.
I hope you can help me point out if I misunderstand anything, so that I can understand clearly the logic of this question and the answer choices.
The logic for this argument is:
(a)Fewer people study CM -> (b)fewer talents play & more non-talents play CM
-> (c)audience will not appreciate the music -> (d) switch to other music
Conclusion: To keep CM popular -> encourage more people to study CM
Assumption: if people switch to other music -> CM will not be popular
Which one weakens the argument?
Opt (B) Classical music???s current meager popularity is attributable to the profusion of other genres of music available to listeners.
This one says that profusion of other genres CAUSES Classical music???s current meager popularity (causal relationship).
So CM popularity is due to music genres profusion, not by the number of CM students or how those students perform. This one casts doubt on the assumption mentioned above, suggesting that since music genres profusion CAUSED CM popularity, in the future,(even if people switch to other music genres) as long as there???s a profusion of genres, CM will probably still be popular.
The conclusion is therefore weakened.

Option (C) Most people who appreciate classical music come to do so through old recordings rather than live performances.
The stimulus says (c)audience will not appreciate the music ???(d) switch to other music
This option says about people who appreciate CM, and the reasons why they do so.
So from the stimulus, if people listen to performances by not-gifted musicians, they will not appreciate CM; which means that if people appreciate CM, they don???t listen to performances by not-gifted musicians.
Opt (C) says most people appreciate CM b/c they listened to old recordings. Of course, old recordings are presumably made by talented CM musicians,
So C EITHER strengthens the argument by providing a specific example for a premise in the stimulus OR doesn???t do anything to the argument b/c it repeats the premise.
GMAT Ninja said:
???The critic reasons that audiences will move away from classical music as they listen to weaker performances of classical music. However, if most people who appreciate classical music come to do so through old recordings rather than live performances, it doesn't matter if the quality of the performances is in decline. Those people can still listen to old recordings and thus still appreciate the greatness of classical music. This breaks the critic's line of reasoning, so (C) is a solid choice.???
This option talks about ???people who appreciate classical music??? and the premise says ???Audiences who hear these performances will not appreciate classical music???s???. OK, so among people who appreciate CM, most appreciate because they listen to old recording; among people who DON???T appreciate, they don???t appreciate because of what? We don???t know. For the current status (when CM is still popular), most who appreciate b/c of old recordings (not b/c of the performances) So in the future, if the recordings still exist, then people will probably continue to appreciate CM irrespective of the performances quality, meaning that CM popularity will be maintained ??? breaks the conclusion.
So with C, there are confusing interpretations of the implied meaning.
And between B&C, it???s hard to choose which one is outright better!

Let's take a close look at your analysis for choice (B):

Choice (B) explains the current MEAGER popularity. The profusion of other genres is not what MAKES classical music popular. Rather, the profusion of other genres LIMITS the popularity of classical music. The author is concerned with maintaining the current MEAGER level of popularity.

As for choice (C), you stated: "among people who DON'T appreciate, they don't appreciate because of what? We don't know."

This is true, but we don't care about the people who DON'T appreciate classical music. The author is only concerned with preventing the people who DO appreciate classic music from decamping to other genres.

I hope that helps!

Dear Experts. Please help a non native..

The author says "So to maintain classical music???s current MEAGER popularity, we must...."

He is asking for reasons that could maintain the MEAGER (poor) popularity. Where is it implied that he is looking for reasons to INCREASE the popularity. I just do not see it.

Regards!

Hi GMATNinja

Kindly explain as to where am I going wrong with such line of thinking:

Option A: My interpretation:
Because most people are taking up classical music simply on the basis of their ‘personal belief’ and not the ‘actual talent’, inclusion of more youngsters into this genre will eventually not affect the quality of classical music / will not raise the quality of this genre. Hence, a weakener.

Option C: My interpretation:
Because audience is appreciating classical music by listening to old recordings, their taste of such music is likely to be of very high quality. This tends to further strengthen the conclusion: because such audience will not appreciate current music quality in a live performance, the need to encourage younger talent is desired.

Thanks

Here "meager" means "deficient in quantity". So "meager popularity" just implies that classical music is not very popular. The music critic is not interested in INCREASING the level of popularity. Instead, the music critic is talking about MAINTAINING (keeping the same) the current level of popularity (as opposed to LOSING even more listeners).

(A) tells us that musicians choose to study classical music because they believe they have an aptitude for it. We are trying to encourage more young musicians to enter the field. Well, what if we encourage more musicians to believe that they have an aptitude for classical music? Given (A), that would certainly help maintain classical music's popularity.

We have no idea how much talent is out there and what portion of those with sufficient talent believe that they have an aptitude for classical music. By itself, (A) is not a reason why we could not encourage more musicians to believe and thus encourage them to study classical music.

MOST people appreciate classical music because of old recordings, NOT live performances. Your interpretation of (C) directly contradicts this statement. (C) tells us that the quality of live performances will have little impact on appreciation of classical music--old recordings will always be there, regardless of what happens with future live performances. (C) tells us that we don't need to worry so much about the quality of future live performances, if our goal is simply to maintain appreciation of classical music's greatness and, thus, prevent listeners from decamping (departing) to other genres.

I hope that helps!

Dear VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun

I still do not know why choice D. is incorrect.

Choice D. implies that even if we do NOT encourage more young musicians to enter the field, we will still be able to "maintain classical music’s current meager popularity" because the audience still enjoys the music! This destroys the necessary condition in the conclusion.

Please help explain this hard problem!
Thank you in advance

Hi varotkorn,

You're right, but look at the way option D is worded: "It is possible to enjoy the music..." This option does nothing except say that something is not a 0. Option C, on the other hand, puts a "most" next to whatever it says. Now we have to choose. Option C and option D both weaken the argument, but which one is better? Which one "most weakens" the argument?

In other words, D is not "wrong wrong". It is just not as good as C.

AjiteshArun

I marked option B for the reasoning mentioned:

Lack of A( fewer musicians) leads to Lack of B( low quality of Classical music) Leads to Lack of C ( audience will not appreciate Classical music) leads to lack of D ( Low popularity of Classical music).

Conclusion: To maintain lack of D( Meagre popularity of Classical music), must encourage young musicians (necessary condition).

Question stem: Weaken the reasoning.

Option B: Meagre popularity of Classical music ( Lack of D) is because of other Genre available to audience (alternate cause) l. So basically, 'encouraging young people to study Classical music will not help maintain popularity since the reason for meagre popularity is availability of genre (option B).

As per my understanding whole argument evolves mentioning causes of one to another eventually leading to 'Meagre popularity of Classical music'.
Whereas option B breaks the reasoning by stating alternate cause for such Meagre popularity.

Please help where I am faltering in my reasoning. I tried figure out multiple times, however, couldn't find the flaw.

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device­

Hi gmatassassin88,

Let's start by focusing on the beginning of the conclusion:
So to maintain classical music’s current meager popularity, we must encourage more young musicians to enter the field.

The author wants to maintain classical music's current meager popularity. He or she is concerned more about the future than the past ("decreasing the likelihood that those with real aptitude for such music will be performing it", "audiences who hear these performances will not appreciate classical music’s greatness and will thus decamp to other genres"). All of this tells us what the author says will happen. That is, the popularity of classical music will decrease further ("audiences... will thus decamp to other genres").

Option B gives us the reason for classical music's "current meager popularity". In other words, B tells us why the popularity of classical music is as low as it is. It doesn't, however, give us any reason to believe that it is not essential that we "encourage more young musicians to enter the field".

1. Profusion of other genres → 2. current meager popularity → 3. fewer and fewer musicians studying/later performing classical music → 4. popularity decreases further → 5. Therefore, we must address (3) to maintain (2).

Option B gives us the reason for (2), but it doesn't mean that we should go against the (3) to (5) chain.

AjiteshArun

Thanks for the explanation

I believe I have understood where I was going wrong.After considering option B , I also considered going against the premises in the argument.

However with this understanding, correct answer choice also breaks the chain of reasoning.So please clarify the difference between option B & correct answer choice, since both are going against the chain.


Thanks

Posted from my mobile device

That's the point: option B does not break the chain. It merely tells us why the popularity is where it currently is. The author, on the other hand, is concerned about what happens next. ~Fewer musicians, (even) lower popularity levels. The author feels that the only way to fix this new problem is to ~bring in more musicians. Therefore, the problem the author wants to tackle is different from the original problem ("meager popularity"). Keep in mind that option B gives us the reason only for the current level of popularity.

The correct option breaks the chain by attacking the connection between "fewer and fewer musicians studying/later performing classical music" and "audiences will thus decamp to other genres". It does this by telling us that most people who appreciate classical music come to do so through old recordings rather than live performances. This means that in order to maintain the current popularity of classical music, it may not be necessary to encourage more young musicians to enter the field.

@GMATNinja, the first option is still bothering me. Can you help me understand where I am going wrong?

Option A - Musicians who choose to study classical music do so because they believe they have an aptitude for the music

This means that musicians who are currently studying classical music (however small that number might be) have an aptitude for it. Doesn't this break critic's line of reasoning?

If we look at the first statement of the critic, it says that fewer musicians study classical music which means those with real aptitude will not be performing it in the future.

If we go by option A, then the above statement reasoning breaks. People who are studying classical music have an aptitude for it. Now, if the current popularity is still decreasing, then there must be some other reason for it UNRELATED to the aptitude of the musicians. So, we don't need young musicians to enter the field to work on the "aptitude" bit. We need something else, hence weakened.

There's a difference between believing you have an aptitude for something and actually having an aptitude for that thing.

For example, I might believe I have an aptitude for high-stakes poker, but lose all of my money when I go play. Or I may believe I'd be awesome at wind surfing, and then realize when I'm out in the water that I was very, very wrong in my belief.

Similarly, maybe people who believe that have an aptitude for classical music decide to play, but they actually sound terrible and audiences are turned away from the genre.

On the other hand, maybe there are people who actually have a great aptitude for classical music, but never try it out because they don't believe they'd be good at it. In this situation, audiences would robbed of hearing these talented musicians who just lacked confidence in their abilities.

The critic argues that more young musicians should be encouraged to enter the field. This argument isn't weakened by the fact that the current crop of musicians believe they have aptitude -- if more musicians tried it out, then more talent would likely be discovered and the mediocre players would get weeded out.

That's why you can eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!

The official answer C is wrong. I don't get how it is not obvious to others, maybe I overthink.

A,B,D: ok but weak
C: this effectively is saying classical music already achieved optimal form via old recording, any new live performance is irrelevant, hence number of new young musician doesn't matter - ok but weak
E: this effectively says the popularity of a genre depends "in part" on audience being able to appreciate = best answer. Because you can have the best classical performer or the best quality old recording, if audience's taste have changed ie prefer EDM; then classical music's popularity will drop irrespective of having more or less young musician.

If you like, Option E includes Option C = better answer.

Hi faat99,

Why do you think that the OA is weak?

Also, keep in mind that the correct option won't always be very "strong". It just needs to be better than the other options.