GMAT Club Forum :: If the recording now playing on the jazz program is really “Louis Arms : Critical Reasoning (CR)

Let us breakdown the argument. the same line of reasoning must be paralleled in the correct answer.

the first statement depicts an impossible situation.

"louis armstrong recorded in concert in 1989" --> louis armstrong was playing jazz after his death.

Since this is clearly impossible, two things are possible -
1. the concert was not in 1989 OR
2. it was not played by louis armstrong.

the last sentence denies that (2) is the case and hence, (1) must be true.

The correct answer should follow this line of reasoning.

A - let us try to break this answer option down.

painting by Malina Hoffman, a sculptor --> this clearly does not represent an impossible situation. A sculptor might have painted one or two sketches.

Since the argument thinks it is impossible, 2 things must be possible -
1. Not a painting
2. Not by Hoffman

the answer option does not deny (2) like the question stem to assert (1). It only asserts (1).

B - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation.

by Berthe Morisot --> painting must be at two locations at the same time.

two alternatives must be given -
1. painting is not by Berthe Morisot (the painting is mistitled).

We cannot infer the second one. Furthermore, the argument does not deny one alternative and assert the other.

C - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation.

"by Frida Kahlo" --> twentieth-century Mexican artist painted in Japan during the seventeenth century.

two alternatives are possible -
1. not by Frida Kahlo
2. not a japanese landscape

the next sentence denies (2) and affirms (1). this is the correct answer.

D - "sculpture by Kathe Kollwitz"; Kathe kollwitz is known for her prints.

this does NOT depict an impossible situation. It is perfectly possible that she sculpted one or two things.

two alternatives -
1. not by Kathe.
2. not a sculpture.

the answer option does not deny one and affirm the other. Incorrect.

E - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation.

acrylic painting by Elisabeth Vigee -->acrylic should have been used by her before it was discovered.

2 alternatives must be given -
1. Not by Elisabeth
2. Not in acrylic.

the next sentence does not deny any of the two. It affirms that it is portrait and hence affirms (2) - this makes this incorrect.

Author:	YangYichen [ 23 Dec 2016, 00:06 ]
Post subject:	If the recording now playing on the jazz program is really “Louis Arms
If the recording now playing on the jazz program is really “Louis Armstrong recorded in concert in 1989,” as the announcer said, then Louis Armstrong was playing some of the best jazz of his career years after his death. Since the trumpeter was definitely Louis Armstrong, somehow the announcer must have gotten the date of the recording wrong. The patter of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments? (A) The museum is reported as having acquired a painting “by Malvina Hoffman, an artist who died in 1966.” But Hoffman was sculptor, not a painter, so the report must be wrong about the acquisition being a painting. (B) This painting titled La Toilette is Berthe Morisot’s La Toilette only if a painting can be in two museums at the same time. Since nothing can be in two places at once, this painting must somehow have been mistitled. (C) Only if a twentieth-century Mexican artist painted in Japan during the seventeenth century can this work both be “by Frida Kahlo” as labeled and the seventeenth century Japanese landscape it appears to be. Since it is what it appears to be, the label is wrong. (D) Unless Kathe Kollwitz was both a sculptor and a printmaker, the volunteer museum guide is wrong in his attribution of this sculpture. Since what Kollwitz is known for is her prints, the guide must be wrong. (E) If this painting is a portrait done in acrylic, it cannot be by Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun, since acrylic paint was developed only after her death. Thus, since it is definitely a portrait, the paint must not be acrylic.

Author:	CrackverbalGMAT [ 23 Dec 2016, 22:14 ]
Post subject:	If the recording now playing on the jazz program is really Louis Arms
Let us break the argument down. the same line of reasoning must be paralleled in the correct answer. the first statement depicts an impossible situation. "louis armstrong recorded in concert in 1989" --> louis armstrong was playing jazz after his death. Since this is clearly impossible, two things are possible - 1. the concert was not in 1989 OR 2. it was not played by louis armstrong. the last sentence denies that (2) is the case and hence, (1) must be true. The correct answer should follow this line of reasoning. A - let us try to break this answer option down. painting by Malina Hoffman, a sculptor --> this clearly does not represent an impossible situation. A sculptor might have painted one or two sketches. Since the argument thinks it is impossible, 2 things must be possible - 1. Not a painting 2. Not by Hoffman the answer option does not deny (2) like the question stem to assert (1). It only asserts (1). B - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation. by Berthe Morisot --> painting must be at two locations at the same time. two alternatives must be given - 1. painting is not by Berthe Morisot (the painting is mistitled). We cannot infer the second one. Furthermore, the argument does not deny one alternative and assert the other. C - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation. "by Frida Kahlo" --> twentieth-century Mexican artist painted in Japan during the seventeenth century. two alternatives are possible - 1. not by Frida Kahlo 2. not a japanese landscape the next sentence denies (2) and affirms (1). this is the correct answer. D - "sculpture by Kathe Kollwitz"; Kathe kollwitz is known for her prints. this does NOT depict an impossible situation. It is perfectly possible that she sculpted one or two things. two alternatives - 1. not by Kathe. 2. not a sculpture. the answer option does not deny one and affirm the other. Incorrect. E - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation. acrylic painting by Elisabeth Vigee -->acrylic should have been used by her before it was discovered. 2 alternatives must be given - 1. Not by Elisabeth 2. Not in acrylic. the next sentence does not deny any of the two. It affirms that it is portrait and hence affirms (2) - this makes this incorrect.

Author:	YangYichen [ 23 Dec 2016, 22:23 ]
Post subject:	Re: If the recording now playing on the jazz program is really “Louis Arms
CrackVerbalGMAT wrote: Let us breakdown the argument. the same line of reasoning must be paralleled in the correct answer. the first statement depicts an impossible situation. "louis armstrong recorded in concert in 1989" --> louis armstrong was playing jazz after his death. Since this is clearly impossible, two things are possible - 1. the concert was not in 1989 OR 2. it was not played by louis armstrong. the last sentence denies that (2) is the case and hence, (1) must be true. The correct answer should follow this line of reasoning. A - let us try to break this answer option down. painting by Malina Hoffman, a sculptor --> this clearly does not represent an impossible situation. A sculptor might have painted one or two sketches. Since the argument thinks it is impossible, 2 things must be possible - 1. Not a painting 2. Not by Hoffman the answer option does not deny (2) like the question stem to assert (1). It only asserts (1). B - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation. by Berthe Morisot --> painting must be at two locations at the same time. two alternatives must be given - 1. painting is not by Berthe Morisot (the painting is mistitled). We cannot infer the second one. Furthermore, the argument does not deny one alternative and assert the other. C - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation. "by Frida Kahlo" --> twentieth-century Mexican artist painted in Japan during the seventeenth century. two alternatives are possible - 1. not by Frida Kahlo 2. not a japanese landscape the next sentence denies (2) and affirms (1). this is the correct answer. D - "sculpture by Kathe Kollwitz"; Kathe kollwitz is known for her prints. this does NOT depict an impossible situation. It is perfectly possible that she sculpted one or two things. two alternatives - 1. not by Kathe. 2. not a sculpture. the answer option does not deny one and affirm the other. Incorrect. E - the first sentence talks about an impossible situation. acrylic painting by Elisabeth Vigee -->acrylic should have been used by her before it was discovered. 2 alternatives must be given - 1. Not by Elisabeth 2. Not in acrylic. the next sentence does not deny any of the two. It affirms that it is portrait and hence affirms (2) - this makes this incorrect. amazing explanation! now i understand the main point of reasoning in the stilumi as well as in the right answer~thank u so much u are really a logic guru~

Author:	simran01 [ 29 Dec 2022, 09:16 ]
Post subject:	Re: If the recording now playing on the jazz program is really Louis Arms
I think E is also in line with the reasoning since the last line mention it's not acrylic thus denying one argument. Why is E not considered?

GMAT Club Forum https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/

If the recording now playing on the jazz program is really “Louis Arms https://gmatclub.com/forum/if-the-recording-now-playing-on-the-jazz-program-is-really-louis-arms-231080.html	Page 1 of 1

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/