Passage Summary: Some people think Bach is only famous because he wrote so many songs that a few of them were bound to be hits, not because he was actually a consistently great composer.

Conclusion: Bach's enduring fame is primarily a result of his massive volume of work rather than a high ratio of great to mediocre pieces.

Reasoning: Because Bach wrote over a thousand compositions, it was statistically certain that some would be masterpieces that survived through the ages.

Analysis: The argument assumes that quantity alone is the driver of fame and that Bach's 'mediocre' works didn't contribute to his reputation. To weaken this, we should look for information that suggests his quality was the real factor, regardless of the quantity. For example, if other composers wrote just as much but are forgotten, then quantity isn't the secret sauce. Alternatively, if even his 'mediocre' works are considered better than everyone else's best, the 'ratio' argument falls apart.