Question Type:
Flaw (technically, Weaken, since all answers are prefaced with "fails to consider")
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: It's misguided to say that we need to put restrictions on music, since music can manipulate the emotions.
Evidence: Musicians are seeking to manipulate emotions; they're seeking to create beauty.
Answer Anticipation:
How has the author failed to prove her conclusion? GIVEN THAT musicians aren't trying to manipulate emotions, HOW COULD IT STILL BE that it makes sense to restrict music because of the harmful ways music can manipulate emotions?
We could probably say, "even though musicians aren't INTENDING to manipulate in harmful ways, they still ARE, so we should still address the problem".
Correct Answer:
A
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Looks delicious. Plato wants to restrict music because of the effects it has, not because of what music creators intend.
(B) "Other forms of expression" are completely out of scope. "Other" is a classic out of scope red flag.
(C) This would, if anything, strengthen. It would corroborate the author's idea that Plato's argument for censorship of music was misguided (unconvincing).
(D) "Other forms of art" is out of scope. "Other"is again the out of scope red flag.
(E) The author's premise is that "musicians are not seeking to manipulate emotions". This answer choice would apparently be talking about OTHER artists or it would be going against the premise.
Takeaway/Pattern: We could make an analogous "intent vs. result" argument with cigarette smoking.
"Patrick argues that because of the harmful ways in which cigarette smoke can impair pulmonary health, restarants need to put restrictions on where patrons can smoke. However, because cigarette smokers seek not to have others breathe in their smoke but to simply enjoy their meal more, this argument is misguided."
We would be like, "sure, the smokers don't WANT to give other people second hand lung cancer, but they still might be ACTUALLY doing it, so let's make them smoke out front."
#officialexplanation