I’m happy to help. As always, let’s start with the question stem. We are looking for an answer that describes the strategy Alberto is adopting to criticize the argument of Edwina. In order to answer that, we also have to understand her argument.
Edwina is saying: To truly appreciate Mozart, you need to hear it exactly as he intended. THAT IS, (whenever you see “that isâ€, be on the lookout for the form of the argument) exactly as he heard it. Note that there is a logical argument there, with the “that is†as linkage: that hear exactly as he intended == hear exactly as he heard it.
That is a premise of the argument, and it leads to the next sentence and conclusion that we should also hear the music on eighteenth century instruments.
Note, then, what Alberto does: he is attacking the == linkage between what Mozart heard and how Mozart intended the music to be heard. Alberto does this by giving evidence that what the composer wrote was, “as a matter of course,†modified by the performer.
That is why answer is E is correct, as answer E describes what Alberto is doing: attacking the linkage, and thus the premise, of Edwina’s argument.
I hope this helps! Please let us know if you have further questions.
Julie-VJuly 25, 2019
thank you for the explanation Jacob! It most definitely shows why (E) would be the correct answer.
I wasn't so quick to choose (E) when I was stuck between (C) and (E). I was wondering if someone could help explain why we can eliminate (C). I think "musical authenticity" is what tripped me up because I wasn't sure if Mozart hearing his music "exactly as he heard it" vs. "played as he had intended it to be played" had any relation to authenticity.
Also, (D) looked tempting at first. Can we eliminate this choice because Alberto doesn't show that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, but instead gives a counterexample by questioning the notion of how the music was intended to be heard?
I greatly appreciate all the help, many thanks in advance!!
RaviAugust 7, 2019
@Julie-V,
Let's look at (C) and (D).
(C) says, "He defends a competing view of musical authenticity."
The problem with (C) is that Alberto doesn't have a competing view; rather, he simply has some criticisms for Edwina's view of authenticity, so we can get rid of (C).
(D) says, "He attacks the logic of her argument by suggesting that the conclusion she draws does not follow from the premises she sets forth."
The problem with (D) is that Alberto doesn't have criticisms with the assembly of the argument. Rather, Alberto has a problem with one of the components (hearing music as Mozart intended it to be heard) she's using in her argument. Put simply, he questions whether or not one of her premises is actually true. Thus, we can get rid of (D).
Does that make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
