The reason J. S. Bach is remembered is not that he had a high ratio of outstanding compositions to mediocre compositi...

shunhe on October 6, 2020

Hi @jingjingxiao11111@gmail.com,

Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at this stimulus here. We’re told that the reason Bach is remembered isn’t because he had a high ratio of outstanding to mediocre compositions. It’s because he was a prolific composer, having composed over 1000 full-fledged compositions. So it was inevitable that some would be understanding and last the ages (because he just wrote so many of them).

Now we’re asked for something that most seriously weakens the argument if true. What’s the conclusion we’re trying to weaken? It’s that the reason Bach was remembered was because he was a prolific composer, and not because he had a high ratio of outstanding to mediocre compositions.

Now let’s take a look at (A), which tells us that several of Bach’s contemporaries who produced more works than he did have been largely forgotten. Well, if some people put out even more works than Bach, then they should be famous too, if the idea is just that the way to get famous is just to spam a bunch of compositions and wait until something’s a hit. But they aren’t, which makes this theory seem less likely to be true. So (A) weakens and is the correct answer.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

wbutler91 on October 3, 2022

I was in between A and B but I chose B which was incorrect. However, if there are a few highly regarded composers who wrote a comparatively small number of compositions wouldn't that weaken the idea that of Bach being prolific because he wrote over a 1000 compositions and they wrote a small number of compositions and they are "highly regarded" or prolific?

Please explain, thanks in advance!

Emil-Kunkin on December 18, 2022

I think b might actually strengthen the idea that Bach was only great because of his volume. If other composers were great and only wrote a few, that suggests that it is possible to be great with a small body of work, and eliminates the possibility that all great composers must have written thousands of pieces of music. If Bach writes 10 great pieces out of 1000 and Mozart writes 10 great pieces out of 20, then Mozart as a 50-50 shot of his pieces being great. Bach has a 1 percent shot. With those odds, I'd say Mozart is greater