To find the main conclusion of the musicologist's argument, let's break down the structure of the passage:
Premise 1: Classification of a musical instrument depends on the mechanical action through which it produces music.
Premise 2: Even though a piano has strings, those strings are vibrated by the impact of hammers.
Conclusion: Therefore, the piano is properly called a percussion instrument, not a stringed instrument.
The author uses the general rule (Premise 1) to argue a specific point: how a piano specifically should be classified. The main takeaway—the point the author is trying to prove—is that the piano belongs in the percussion category.
Let's look at the options:
(A) is a premise, not the conclusion. This restates the first sentence, which is the foundational rule the musicologist uses to support their final point.
(B) is outside the scope. The passage doesn't discuss how musicians interact with the instruments.
(C) is a counter-premise. This background info explains why some people might get confused, but it isn't what the author is trying to prove.
(D) is the opposite of the argument. The author is saying the piano is not a stringed instrument.
(E) perfectly matches. This accurately captures the final point of the argument: that the piano is properly (correctly) called a percussion instrument.