Question

Playing eighteenth-century music on the instruments of that period provides valuable information about how the music originally sounded. Eighteenth-century instruments cannot be played without being restored, however, and restoring such an instrument destroys all of the information that researchers could obtain from it about eighteenth-century instrument-making techniques.
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true on the basis of them?

• A. Eighteenth-century instruments cannot be used to provide information about the original techniques used in playing such instruments if they have been restored.
• B. Eighteenth-century instruments that have been restored can provide information only about how eighteenth-century music originally sounded.
• C. Eighteenth-century instruments are the only source of information about the instrument-making techniques of that period.
• D. An eighteenth-century instrument that has not been restored can provide more information than can one that has been restored.
• E. An eighteenth-century instrument cannot serve as a source of new information about eighteenth-century instrument-making techniques once it can be played.

Hint:

In "must be true" questions, pay extremely close attention to the exact wording. The difference between "playing techniques" and "instrument-making techniques" is what makes option (A) incorrect. The correct answer will stick precisely to the terms defined in the passage.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a "must be true" or inference question. We are presented with a set of premises and must find a conclusion that logically follows from them without any additional assumptions. The question presents a dilemma.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
Break down the premises into a logical chain:
- Premise 1: To play an instrument \(\rightarrow\) You must restore it.
- Premise 2: To restore an instrument \(\rightarrow\) You destroy all information about its making techniques.
Combine these premises to find the necessary conclusion.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Let's combine the premises:
If an instrument can be played, then it must have been restored (from Premise 1).
If an instrument has been restored, then all information about its making techniques has been destroyed (from Premise 2).
Therefore, if an instrument can be played, then all information about its making techniques has been destroyed.
This means a playable instrument can no longer provide new information about how it was made.
Now let's check the options against this deduction:
- (A) This discusses "playing techniques," but the passage is about "instrument-making techniques." This is a subtle but important distinction. The passage doesn't support this claim.
- (B) The word "only" makes this too strong. A restored instrument might provide other types of information (e.g., about the materials used), even if information about making techniques is lost.
- (C) The word "only" makes this too strong. There could be other sources, like historical documents or diagrams. The passage does not claim instruments are the sole source.
- (D) This compares the amount of information ("more"). The passage states that information about making techniques is completely destroyed ("all"), but an unrestored instrument might provide little information for other reasons. We cannot make a quantitative comparison like "more."
- (E) This is a perfect restatement of our deduction. "Once it can be played" implies it has been restored. And if it has been restored, the information about "instrument-making techniques" is destroyed, so it cannot serve as a source of new information on that topic.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The premises logically lead to the conclusion that the act of restoring an instrument to make it playable necessarily destroys its value as a source of information about its original construction.