#24 - It is popularly believed that a poem has whatever

[ashpine17]

I have a more general question when it comes to these sufficient and necessary assumption questions that involve linking up terms. for this question i understand why Objective evaluation and aesthetic value must be linked up because of the gap in those terms, but I don't see how this is regarded as a necessary assumption when the way they are connected looks just like a sufficient assumption?

AV---> agree

OE---> agree

and the correct answer is OE--->AV but isn't that a sufficient assumption?? or is this question both?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ashpine,

While you do want to approach necessary assumption and sufficient assumption (what we call Justify) questions differently, there are times (especially in conditional arguments) where they overlap and an answer that is necessary for the argument is also sufficient to prove the conclusion.

For example, let's look at the following argument.

Premise: All humans are mortal.

Conclusion: Therefore, John is mortal.

The assumption (i.e. the missing premise) is that "John is human." That statement is necessary for the argument. If John is not human, the argument falls completely apart and the conclusion makes no sense. However, the statement that "John is human" would also justify the argument/make it a valid argument.

In this question, if you use the Assumption Negation Technique on Answer D, then you will see that the negated statement destroys the logic of the argument (meaning the original answer is necessary for the argument).

[Capetowner]

I got this right and understand it fully. However, I have a question regarding the denial of "a poem has whatever
meaning is assigned to it by the reader." which is needed and stated in the conclusion.

"it is possible for at least two readers
to agree on the correct interpretation of the poem."

The above seemed like it could have triggered the CONTRAPOSITIVE of "a poem has whatever
meaning is assigned to it by the reader." However I am aware it is merely an alternative used to replace this popular belief.

However I am trying to justify why it wouldn't contribute to a contrapositive i.e. NOT (have whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader) -----> NOT (poem). Is it because these two 'beliefs' do not capture the two opposite worlds, so the assumption is that they are a part of 2 completely conditional or logical worlds, therefore no contrapositive is created by denying this popular belief; instead, a new definition simply takes its place and is used to draw the conclusion?