We need to find what would weaken the author's main claim that humans are "musicking creatures." The author's core argument is that musicking is a universal, cognitive ability - not just cultural. Let us trace this: From passage: "making music, considered from a cognitive and psychological vantage, is the province of all those who perceive and experience what is made" From passage: "These qualifications, whatever their local merit, are moot in the face of the overarching truth" Author's logic: Cultural differences don't matter -> Musicking is fundamentally cognitive -> All humans are musical creatures So what would weaken this? Something that says musicking is primarily cultural, not cognitive.

🔴 Option 1 -> directly contradicts -> Says musical capacities are "primarily socio-cultural" which goes against author's "cognitive and psychological vantage" argument 🟢 Option 2 -> supports author -> Author already says musicking is "neither language-like nor symbol-like" and discusses its ancient emergence 🟠 Option 3 -> irrelevant scope -> Author never claims music is most important for survival, just that it's universal. This doesn't weaken the "musicking creatures" claim 🟠 Option 4 -> supports author -> Author mentions "innate dispositions" and emphasizes cognitive/psychological basis, so unconscious dispositions actually fit this view The key confusion students might have: Option 3 seems to challenge music's importance. But the author isn't arguing music is the most important human trait - just that it's universal. Something being less important for survival doesn't make it less universal. Option 1 attacks the foundation of the argument by saying musicking is primarily cultural (varies between societies) rather than cognitive (universal to all humans).

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts