Statement by a trade association representing record labels: The just

Question

Statement by a trade association representing record labels:

The justifications offered by proponents of unlawful file sharing are entirely specious. Just like physical products, such as televisions and stereos, music costs money to produce and distribute, and those costs cannot be recouped by means other than music sales. The much ballyhooed “360-deal,” in which a record label receives a percentage of an artist’s touring and merchandise income, is no solution; most major artists refuse to sign them. Thus, we will continue to safeguard the future of the industry by fighting illegal file sharing by any means necessary. Up to now, our options have been limited to litigation: we have sued numerous individuals (often winning decisions of over $1 million), and also sent out letters to many file-sharers at once, offering discount settlements in exchange for a promise never to bring an actual lawsuit against them. While these procedures have been somewhat effective, in the future, we plan to partner with Internet Service Providers and cut off the internet access of offenders.Statement by a file-sharing website

Everyone knows that the record labels’ trade association is a dinosaur left over from the so-called glory days of the recording industry, when no one batted an eyelash at artist exploitation. While it claims to protect the rights of musicians, it’s primarily concerned with lining the pockets of record label executives. This is the main reason that the trade association has fought against the “illegal” downloading of music so violently. However, these lame attempts to stifle file sharing are not only futile, but they aren’t in the best interests of the industry; numerous studies have shown that websites like ours are a blessing for musicians, because they allow people to listen to artists they wouldn’t otherwise have heard. This translates into more ticket sales at musicians’ shows, which record labels could capitalize on by signing 360-deals with their artists. That being said, the bigger issue is that the digital revolution has rendered record labels obsolete, to say nothing of their trade association.

bhanu29 · Answer

Statement 1:  Cannot infer disagreement . Clearly the trade association believes it has the right to sue people who illegally download music, so the question is whether it can be definitively said that the file-sharing website does  not . While the attempts to stifle file sharing are described as “lame,” they are never described as unfair, wrong, unjustifiable, or illegal. The file-sharing website believes that the trade association should stop prosecuting file sharers, but only because file sharing is “a blessing for musicians,” not because they don’t have the right to bring lawsuits.  
 Statement 2:  Cannot infer disagreement . This actually is a point that the two representatives agree on. The statement from the file-sharing website says that record labels could capitalize on increased ticket sales caused by the sharing of music online by signing 360 deals, which implies they’d be worth more money than a usual contract. The trade association claims that 360 deals aren’t a viable option for making money, but only because “most major artists refuse to sign them.” The implication is that if the artists did sign the contracts, they would be worth more money. 
 Statement 3:  Can infer disagreement.  The key here is the way that the two representatives use the word “illegally.” While the trade association’s statement refers to “fighting illegal file sharing,” the file-sharing website’s statement says “the trade association has fought against the ‘illegal’ downloading of music...” The use of the quotation marks around the word “illegal” implies that the file-sharing website does  not  clearly and obviously believe that downloading songs from the internet is against the law. The reason for this belief is never actually stated, but the belief itself is enough to prove that the file-sharing website and the trade association disagree.

A question that asks about the meaning of a word might be asking for something close to the dictionary definition of the word, and in that case the context would provide that meaning. In other cases, such as this one, the question asks about the idiomatic meaning of a word. A dinosaur is an animal, but that literal meaning is not what the file-sharing website intended. Even in this case, the context will provide the correct interpretation. 
 In the file-sharing website’s statement, the trade association is described as  immoral  (“no one batted an eyelash at artist exploitation”),  superfluous  (“left over from the so-called glory days”) and possibly  endangered  (“the digital revolution has rendered record labels obsolete”). Eliminate (A) and (D), because the adjectives  ancient  and  extinct  do not match descriptions of the trade association from the passage. Note that these two adjectives correctly describe actual dinosaurs. Avoid answer choices that connect to the word in question but not to the passage. 
 The word  dinosaur  does not suggest  immorality . And, while  endangered  might seem tempting, the second word of (E),  society , is not an accurate description of the trade association. The word  dinosaur  in the passage is used simply to imply that the trade association has outlived its usefulness, and is thus  superfluous . 
  The correct answer is (B).

Statement 1:  Otherwise  .  The trade association believes it is “safeguarding the future of the   industry” by attempting to stop illegal downloading. This means it believes that illegal downloading is bad for the industry. The file-sharing website says that websites that encourage file sharing are a “blessing for musicians.” Since musicians are part of the music industry, the file-sharing website would disagree with this statement. 
 Statement 2:  Otherwise  .  The trade association has already instigated numerous lawsuits and offered many settlements. It is unlikely the association would continue to pursue litigation if it did not believe that litigation would, in some way, discourage unlawful downloading. It also argues that lawsuits have been “somewhat effective.” The file-sharing website describes the trade association’s fight against the illegal downloading of music as both “lame” and “futile”. This implies that the lawsuits cannot ever seriously affect unlawful downloading. 
 Statement 3:  Otherwise  .  The trade association claims that its lawsuits have been “somewhat effective,” meaning that they have mitigated the financial ramifications in a practical way. The file-sharing website claims that “record labels could capitalize on   by signing 360-deals with their artists.” Evidently, the file-sharing website thinks that these deals can mitigate the financial impact of illegal downloading.

Edskore · Answer

Great question, and the 31% correct rate shows why Multi-Source Reasoning trips people up. Let me walk through the approach for Question 1 (the "Can infer disagreement" question), since that's the one most students find tricky.

Key Concept:  MSR "Infer Disagreement" — you must prove BOTH sides hold opposing positions, not just different tones.

The Approach: Read for Position, Not Tone

For each statement, ask yourself: Does Source A say X is true AND Source B say X is false (or vice versa)? Angry tone alone doesn't equal disagreement on a specific claim.

Statement 1: "The trade association has the right to sue people illegally downloading music." 
The trade association clearly believes this (they've done it). The file-sharing website calls their lawsuits "lame" — but never says they don't have the right to sue. They argue it's ineffective, not illegitimate.
 Cannot infer disagreement.

Statement 2: "360 deals bring more money than traditional contracts." 
The file-sharing website suggests record labels should sign 360-deals to capitalize on increased ticket sales — implying they'd be worth more. The trade association says 360-deals don't work because major artists refuse to sign them — but the implication is that if artists signed, they would bring more money. Both actually seem to agree on the value of 360-deals. They disagree on feasibility, not profitability.
 Cannot infer disagreement.

Statement 3: "Downloading a song one doesn't own is clearly and obviously against the law." 
The trade association refers to "illegal file sharing" — no quotation marks, stated as fact. The file-sharing website puts "illegal" in quotation marks: the "illegal" downloading of music. Those scare quotes signal they don't accept this as a settled legal fact.
 Can infer disagreement.

The common trap:  Students see two sources with opposing tones and assume they disagree on everything. But MSR questions are surgical — they test whether specific claims are contradicted, not whether the authors dislike each other. Always match the exact wording of the statement against what each source actually says.

Takeaway:  On MSR disagreement questions, ignore the overall vibe of each passage and laser-focus on whether each source explicitly or implicitly takes a position on the specific claim being asked about.

cumillo · Answer

@ Edskore  According to your solution, in the Q3, it should be both accept right? as both have practical ways of mitigating the finances,

dhruva09 · Answer

RIAA is an acronym to ?

Usernamevisible · Answer

bhanu29

I am unable to understand for Statement 1 - sub-question a and c, both refer to law (and thus filing of suit in sub -question a)

It seems then OA to sub-question a and c is contradictory.

Also, for Question # 3. what does RIAA stand for ?

gullyboy09 · Answer

Can anyone help me with the third statement of Q1? "The downloading of a song one doesn’t own is clearly and obviously against the law."

I can see file sharing website quoted - "..has fought against the “illegal” downloading of music so violently." But here IMO he used quote "illegally" to shove it back to the trade association that they really care about the money and not musicians/artists. It's difficult to infer that they are saying something on the line that it is not illegal. Here file sharing website are not at all attacking on if that's being legal or not, but rather the motive of trade association, and eventually saying this practice might actually benefit artists and eventually trade associations too.

Any expert would like to help here? It's hard to infer disagreement here. We can infer disagreement regrading their motives but not if its illegal or not.

egmat · Answer

Hi gullyboy09,

Your read of the file-sharing website's  intent  is actually right: those scare quotes around "illegal" are, in part, a jab at the trade association. But the question isn't asking about motive - it's asking whether the two sources take  opposing positions on whether downloading is clearly against the law . And on that narrow point, the scare quotes do more work than you're giving them credit for.

Here's the move. Put the two sources side by side on this one word:

-  Tab 1 (Trade association):  writes "fighting  illegal  file sharing" - no quotes, stated flat-out as fact. To them, the illegality is settled and obvious.
-  Tab 2 (File-sharing website):  writes the  "illegal"  downloading of music - the word sits inside scare quotes.

Scare quotes don't just attack a motive; they  distance the writer from the word itself . When you put "illegal" in quotes, you're signaling "this is what  they  call it - I'm not granting that it plainly is." That refusal to accept the label as obvious fact is itself a position on the statement, even though the website never spells out a legal argument.

So you don't need the website to say "downloading is legal." Statement 3 only asks whether the two would  hold opposing positions  on "clearly and obviously against the law." One side asserts it as plain fact; the other won't even use the word without quarantining it. That gap is enough to infer disagreement.

The takeaway for MSR disagreement questions:  a source can signal a position through  how  it words something - punctuation, scare quotes, qualifiers - not only through an explicit claim. The motive-attack you spotted and the legality-distancing can both be true at once; the question just needs the second one.

Answer (Q1, Statement 3): Can infer disagreement.

	An ancient organization
	A superfluous entity
	An immoral association
	An extinct system
	An endangered society

Both accept	Otherwise
		Unlawful downloading is bad for the music business.
		Unlawful downloading can be discouraged by litigation.
		The financial ramifications of unlawful downloading cannot be mitigated in any practical way.

[color=#000000]Can infer disagreement[/color]	[color=#000000]Cannot infer disagreement[/color]
		[color=#000000]The trade association representing the record labels has the right to sue people whom they see as illegally downloading music.[/color]
		[color=#000000]360 deals signed with a major artist bring the record label more money than traditional contracts.[/color]
		[color=#000000]The downloading of a song one doesn’t own is clearly and obviously against the law.[/color]

	[color=#000000]An ancient organization[/color]
	[color=#000000]A superfluous entity[/color]
	[color=#000000]An immoral association[/color]
	[color=#000000]An extinct system[/color]
	[color=#000000]An endangered society[/color]

[color=#000000]Both accept[/color]	[color=#000000]Otherwise[/color]
		[color=#000000]Unlawful downloading is bad for the music business.[/color]
		[color=#000000]Unlawful downloading can be discouraged by litigation.[/color]
		[color=#000000]The financial ramifications of unlawful downloading cannot be mitigated in any practical way.[/color]

Statement by a trade association representing record labels: The just

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

Can infer disagreement	Cannot infer disagreement
		The trade association representing the record labels has the right to sue people whom they see as illegally downloading music.
		360 deals signed with a major artist bring the record label more money than traditional contracts.
		The downloading of a song one doesn’t own is clearly and obviously against the law.

GMAT Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) Questions

Statement by a trade association representing record labels: The just

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