Since Byron's fingers are so short and stubby, he will never

Question

Since Byron's fingers are so short and stubby, he will never be an outstanding pianist

The statement above is based on which of the following assumptions?
A) the size and shape of fingers are important attributes for a professional musical career
B) piano playing requires long, thin fingers
C) physical characteristics can affect how well one plays the piano
D) Byron is not a particularly able pianist
E) no amount of practice will make a difference in Byron's playing ability

monarc · Answer

The debate is between C and E. 

The physical characteristics such as long and thin fingers play an important role in determining how well a person plays...

The "key" is "never be a outstanding" ....

In that sense E says that no matter what he does , he will never be a outstanding player. It seems more like a conclusion than an assumption to me.

I will take my chances and go wth C

C is my choice.

kpadma · Answer

Can a question get any shorter , at the same time any harder, than
this one? Where did you get this Paul? This is another gem that needs 
the understanding of fundamentals of logic.

Anyway, I would choose B.

Reason: In CR, never venture outside the scope of the CR.
Try to be as close to the stem as possible. 
Thanks to Anand and Paul for teaching this trick!

Again, Fingers crossed!

new1975 · Answer

C, yes we have to find out what requires to be an outstanding player.

monarc · Answer

Kpadma:

IMO, B is NOT correct, because the argument ONLy says that to BE and OUTSTANDING Player, the fingers should be longer and thinner. But for normal playing it does NOT matter. This is proved by the fact that Byron is able to play the Piano.So to be OUTSTANDING ONLY, the player requires longer and thinner, Otherwise NOT neccessary.

JUST my OPINION.

lvb9th · Answer

Absolutely C

Hmm, actually, I dont like the idea of "physical attributes", that could imply that having short legs is also important. Too general. Had the sentence been more specific, I wouldve stuck with it. E is the answer, imo. The author is assuming that no matter how much Byron practices he wont be an oustanding pianist. In other words, nothing else can make Byron an oustanding pianist. No teachers, music school, or hours of practice. We must exclude all other posibilities. That's my two cents.

anandnk · Answer

I will go with E.

The argument assumes that physicals shortcomings cannot be overcome by practice.

Paul · Answer

Nice Monarc, refuting other people's answer helps better understanding WHY our answer is better than other ones. Great job. OA: C. Anyone up to refute E? :fyi

the latest CR questions I have taken from LSAT. You can see the increased level of difficulty. Very good practice for us all!

lvb9th · Answer

Hmmm,

Lesson for many of us, try to stick to the answers that you chose. Now, E is wrong because it is not an underlying assumption. Byron can still improve (keyword) his playing, and the author will not refute this statement. While I still dont think that C is a great answer, it is the best of the worst. Had E stated that: "No amount of practice will make Byron an OUTSTANDING pianist," it would've been the best choice. IMO READ READ READ READ the answer choices properly :roof

Paul · Answer

"improve" was indeed the key word. Very nice lvb9th :pray

jason78 · Answer

I would go with A because the assumption is not that ones fingers need to be long and thin, just not short and stubby

Since Byron's fingers are so short and stubby, he will never

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