shobhitkh
Contemporary jazz is obviously an inadequate imitation of classic jazz. Most of today's jazz musicians are formally trained in music theory and practice, often in a university setting.
This is not as it should be; jazz music should be based on the tragic life experiences of the musician.The argument above depends upon which of the following assumptions?
(A) Universities are not capable of instructing musicians in jazz theory.
(B) If a musician cannot play his or her instruments competently, then he or she is not genuine.
(C) Classic jazz musicians were more talented and industrious than their contemporary counterparts.
(D) Formally trained musicians have not been subjected to tragic life experiences.
(E) All musicians trained in universities merely imitate their predecessors' styles.
Kritisood , here is the analysis.
•
AnalysisContemporary jazz is not as good as classical jazz because
1) most contemporary jazz musicians are formally trained, often at a university
and
2) this state of affairs is bad [BECAUSE] good jazz musicians draw on their tragic life experiences.
How does the author get from "musicians with formal training [who create a 'bad state of affairs']"
to
"musicians who do not draw on tragic life experiences"?
The answer to that question is the unspoken assumption upon which the conclusion relies.
Stated another way, two groups have been (inexplicably) pitted against each other:
(1) musicians who receive formal, perhaps university-level, jazz training, and
(2) "real" or "classic" jazz musicians who draw on their own tragic life experiences.
• Answer choicesThe argument depends on which of the following assumptions?Quote:
(A) Universities are not capable of instructing musicians in jazz theory.
No. Out of scope. What universities are capable of doing in jazz theory has nothing to do with whether jazz musicians draw, as they should, upon tragic experiences to make music.
Eliminate A
Quote:
(B) If a musician cannot play his or her instruments competently, then he or she is not genuine.
No. Out of scope.
Competent playing is not the issue. Playing based on tragic experiences is the issue.
The conclusion is about access to emotions, not about technical competence.
Eliminate
Quote:
(C) Classic jazz musicians were more talented and industrious than their contemporary counterparts.
No. Out of scope. The classic musicians were more emotionally expressive than their contemporary counterparts are.
The issue is about access to and basing music on tragic life experiences, not about level of talent or industriousness.
Eliminate C.
Quote:
(D) Formally trained musicians have not been subjected to tragic life experiences.
Bingo. Formally trained musicians are pale imitations of classic jazz musicians who drew on tragic life experiences because formally trained musicians
have not been subjected to tragic life experiences—and therefore
cannot draw on those experiences.
Jazz music "
should be based on the tragic life experiences of the musician.[/color][/b]
No tragic life experiences? No jazz music as it should be.
This must be the answer.
Note: Negation does not work too well in some instances, including this one.
Negation: Formal musicians HAVE been subjected to tragic life experiences.
This negation does not shatter the conclusion because too many other causal links are possible.
-- Formal training may
teach musicians
not to draw on those experiences even if the musicians have them.
-- Formal training may not expose musicians to the emotional expressiveness of classic jazz music.
"Bridging the gap" works better. (I call this approach "reasoning forwards.")
Quote:
(E) All musicians trained in universities merely imitate their predecessors' styles.
No. Out of scope and ambiguous. Are the predecessors then classic jazz musicians? Then this is the opposite answer.
Are the predecessors formally trained? Maybe.
The issue is not who came before contemporary jazz musicians but rather how jazz music should be based on tragic life experiences as currently is not.
The answer is D.