Songwriters get much of the money they earn from their songs from radio airplay. A hit song is played thousands of times, and the songwriter is paid for each play. Only a fraction of songwriters actually achieve a hit, however, and even fewer manage to write several. Writers of hit songs are often asked to write songs for movie sound tracks, but they sometimes decline, because although such songs frequently become hits, their writers receive single up-front payments rather than continued revenues from radio airplay.

Summary
Songwriters get much of the money they earn from their songs from radio airplay. A songwriter is paid for each play, and hit songs are played thousands of times. Only some songwriters actually achieve a hit, however, and even fewer songwriters manage to write several hits. Writers of hit songs are often asked to write songs for movie soundtracks, but they sometimes decline. This is because, although such songs frequently become hits, their writers receive one up-front payment instead of continued revenues from radio airplay.

Notable Valid Inferences
Some songs written for movie soundtracks become hits and are played on the radio thousands of times.

A
Any songwriter who receives revenue from radio airplay has written a hit song.
Could be false. To claim this is true for any songwriter is too extreme. It is possible for a song that is not a hit to be played on the radio, and those songwriters would still receive some revenue.
B
All songwriters who write songs for movie sound tracks have had their songs played on the radio thousands of times.
Could be false. To claim this is true for all songwriters is too extreme. It is possible for an unknown songwriter to get asked to write songs for movie sound tracks. We only know that sometimes writers of hit songs are asked to write songs for movie sound tracks.
C
Some songs written for movie sound tracks are played on the radio thousands of times.
Must be true. The stimulus tells us that songs written for movie sound tracks frequently become hits. Since hit songs are played thousands of times, it must follow that some songs written for movie sound tracks are played thousands of times.
D
Most songwriters prefer the possibility of continued income to single up-front payments for their songs.
Could be false. The stimulus does not give us any information about what most songwriters prefer. It is possible that there are other options songwriters prefer.
E
Some songwriters earn money solely from the radio airplay of their songs.
Could be false. We don’t have enough information in the stimulus about sources of income for songwriters to make this claim. It is possible that there are no songwriters solely earning money from radio airplay.

28 comments

Lecturer: If I say, “I tried to get my work done on time,” the meanings of my words do not indicate that I didn’t get it done on time. But usually you would correctly understand me to be saying that I didn’t. After all, if I had gotten my work done on time, I would instead just say, “I got my work done on time.” And this example is typical of how conversation works.

Summary

The lecturer gives us an example of a statement that, in a conversation, contains meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. The literal meaning of “I tried to get my work done on time” does not express that I didn’t get my work done on time. But if I made that statement, you’d be correct to understand me as asserting that I didn’t get my work done on time. This example is typical of other statements in a conversation.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

People say things that contain meanings beyond the literal meaning of the words.

A
Understanding what people say often requires more than just understanding the meanings of the words they use.

Strongly supported. We have an example of a statement that contains meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. This was typical of conversations. So, understanding the meaning of some other things people say requires more than just the meaning of the literal words.

B
It is unusual for English words to function in communication in the way that “tried” does.

Unsupported. The stimulus gave us an example of something that is typical (usual) in conversations. There’s no support for a claim about the function of certain words being unusual.

C
Understanding what people use a word to mean often requires detecting their nonverbal cues.

Unsupported. We don’t know that understanding the meaning of the example in the stimulus requires nonverbal cues. We might get the meaning from the context in which it’s made, or from the fact the person didn’t say something else.

D
Speakers often convey more information in conversation than they intend to convey.

Unsupported. The example in the stimulus concerns a speaker who intends to express more than what the literal words mean. It doesn’t concern someone who expressed more than he intended.

E
Listeners cannot reasonably be expected to have the knowledge typically required for successful communication.

Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about how likely people will interpret statements accurately. Maybe most people interpret statements in conversations accurately; there’s no evidence either for or against this possibility.


8 comments