#13 - Writer: In the diplomat’s or lawyer’s world, a

[Tuothekhazar]

Hello PS,

For this question I was between A and C and chose (C). I think it's because I did not set up my conditional statement correct. Can you please explain how "thus legal and diplomatic language is stilted and utterly without literary merit, since by design it presents misinterpretation, which in these areas can have severe consequences."

I am not seeing how this is a conditional statement. Furthermore, since it is conditional reasoning why does the Unless Equation not apply?

Thanks!
~JB

C. Lawyers and diplomats are much less likely to be misunderstood than are novelists.

1. We are not discussing whether Lawyer and Diplomat likely to be misunderstood than the other people from any other occupation " might " be associated literary merits.

2. A thing ( Misinterpreted statement ) of a group ( Diplomat or lawyer world ) with a character "can" happen does not necessary mean that thing always required to be happened. The possibilities for that thing be happened is necessary bigger than 0, and even 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is bigger than 0. Perhaps only 1 out of a billion statement is a misinterpreted statement, and it still can be necessary mean that, if being designed to prevent the misinterpretation, a misinterpreted statement as the language of diplomat and lawyer's world is still stilted and utterly without literary value.



Traditional Solution

No Consequences -> No( International incident + undeserved prison term ) -> No misinterpretation -> By designing language -> Language of ( D + L ) must be stilted + No merit.

Predict answer

Any contrapositives, inferred from the previous logic chain, being negated would destroy this logic chain, is the correct answer.

My way to solve this.

Suppose there are only 2 groups of the language, A and B

A Group is the group of legal and diplomatic language, and B group is the group of any other language.

After being influenced by the “ act “ of design, we know that act eliminate misinterpretation from the original A group, but also that the act must increase the degree of being Stilted and also eliminate any literary merit of that group. Meanwhile, whatever happened on A group should also on B group as well to ensure the logic is air tight.

Then we can transform our interpretation into math.

Misinterpretation of A always > Misinterpretation of A be designed = M( A ) > M ( A/ D )

After being designed, A group is stilted and without literary merit. = Either S( A ) < S ( A/D ) or LM( A ) > LM ( A/D ) or both

And we know, it should be worked the same as for group B.

1. So we know that M ( A ) > M ( A / D ) < - > S( A ) < S ( A/D ) or LM ( A ) > LM ( A/D ) or both.

2. If LM ( A ) > LM ( A/D ) exists, then we know LM ( A ) and M ( A ) must larger than 0, since we know LM ( A/D ) & M ( A/D ) equal 0, and 0 can’t be larger than 0, and the same also applies to group B.

Just 2 concepts, that’s all.


The writer’s argument requires assuming which one of the following?

A.Language that has literary value is more likely to be misunderstood than language without literary value.

LM ( A ) > LM ( A/D ) -> M ( A ) > M ( A/D )
LM ( B ) > LM ( B/D ) -> M ( B ) > M ( B/D )

Just as we say, both LM ( A group, B group ) and M ( A group, B group ) must be larger than 0, since 0 can never bigger/smaller than itself.

If M ( A ) = M ( A/D ) and M ( B ) = M ( B/D ), then the influence of the act through designing the language would never reduce the misinterpretation, since there is none in original language before, and if there is no any misinterpretation be reduced, how can we be so certain on the positive degree of being stilted and zero quantity on the literary merits due to " design " that language ? Then the argument can't hold itself.

B. Literary documents are generally less important than legal or diplomatic documents.

It's not necessary for any language to be less, much, equally important as any others.

C. Lawyers and diplomats are much less likely to be misunderstood than are novelists.

* We are not discussing whether Lawyer and Diplomat likely to be misunderstood than the other people from any other occupation " might " be associated literary merits.

You are assuming that

Same reason to eliminate C

D. The issues that are of interest to lawyers and diplomats are of little interest to others.

Same reason to eliminate D

E. People express themselves more cautiously when something important is at stake.

Same reason to eliminate E.

[vincentsui0930@gmail.com]

Hello Powerscore,

I was taught to negate it and see if it attacks the stimulus. In this case, when I negated it, I concluded that "language that has literary value is less likely to be understood than language with literary value". Am I correct?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Vincent,

The correct negation is that language with literary value is not more likely to be misunderstood than language without literary value. It's a bit different than your negation because it includes the idea that they could have the same likelihood of being misunderstood.

Good work!