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

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Andes,

The key here is that you have to be on the lookout for it. There are literally billions of things they could could equate, so there's no way to create a "guide" or method for it. But, we know that once they introduce an idea, one of the possibilities is that they will restate that idea in another fashion (which you've seen already elsewhere). Thus, it becomes your responsibility to be aware of that and to keep an eye out for it. That may sound daunting, but once you've seen it a few times, it becomes easier to recognize. I tend to think that the sound of the idea here is worse than the actual practice of it, and so that going forward this will be less of a concern than you might imagine. Sure, there will be some that are tricky like this one, but you can't lower inherent difficulty—you just have to be aware of the possibility

I hope that helps. Good luck!

[andes.lsat]

Hi Dave-

Got it! Thanks:)

[al_godnessmary]

Oh dear dear dear...

I went for C. I wasn't entirely convinced because it was a little twisted with "only if it is false that" but I figured it wasn't B due to the definiteness of "ensures." Still missed the mark.

Reading through the previous posts I think my diagramming is solid:

Obj whatever meaning
Value 2agree

I then thought I should be looking for

2agree obj

in order to complete the circle, so to speak.

I guess "value" can actually be summarized as "discussion," so I am current in thinking that I got this the wrong way around and should have been looking for this instead:

whatever meaning value/discussion

Is that it???

[Robert Carroll]

al,

The gap here is between "discussion of aesthetic value" and "objective evaluation."

objective evaluation possible whatever meaning assigned by reader

aesthetic value can be discussed whatever meaning assigned by reader

The author is assuming some kind of connection between the sufficient conditions; otherwise, the argument never proves that objective evaluation requires an agreement about meaning, only that aesthetic value can't be discussed without an agreement about meaning.

The author is thus envisioning this chain:

objective evaluation possible aesthetic value can be discussed whatever meaning assigned by reader

Answer choice (D) matches that.

If two people agree on the correct interpretation, then the popular belief that every person has his/her own interpretation is false. Thus, the necessary conditions to the two conditionals are the same. If you miss that, it's hard to see what connection you have to make.

Answer choice (B) is a Mistaken Reversal of the chain that expresses the conclusion, and the assumption of the reversal of that chain is not needed by the argument.

Answer choice (C) refers to discussion in general. We don't need to assume that any discussion requires it to be false that a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader. We are only talking about discussion about aesthetic value and objective evaluation.

Robert Carroll

[Oakenshield]

I feel little confused about D).
Premise: AVD (Aesthetic value of a poem can be discussed) → ACI （at least two readers to agree on...）
Conclusion: O (objective evaluation of poetry) → ACI （the belief is false= at least two readers to agree on...）

In other words, ∵AVD → ACI
∴O → ACI
I think my task is to fill the gap, making AVD → O.
But the correct answer refers to O → AVD. Isn't it reverse?
I believe I must omit something, could you tell me why I am wrong?

Thanks in advance. You have helped me solve many questions and I really appreciate your patience and help.

[Claire Horan]

Hi Oakenshield,

If you know AVD → ACI is one of the premises and you need another premise to reach the conclusion O → ACI, the missing premise can't be AVD → O. It doesn't allow you to draw a chain. O could still happen without ACI.

The correct answer allows for a chain:
O → AVD + AVD → ACI = O→ ACIAVD → ACI, which allows you to correctly conclude that O → ACI.

[pasu1223]

Hello,

I read most of this thread and think I understand 75% of this problem. Because this is a conditional reasoning assumption question is it fair to rule out C and E because they don't use strong enough language such as "possible" and "best," and then to rule out A because it uses "judge" rather than "discuss"?


Also in terms of identifying which is the conclusion and which is the premises in this stimulus should the key word "for" after the semicolon be a flag that this is a premise of the argument and not a conclusion of the argument?

Then B should not be chosen because this links to the conclusion to support the premises rather than the premises to support the conclusion?

Thanks for the help!

Patrick

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Patrick. I would agree with you that the "best accomplished" language in answer E kills it pretty definitively, because our argument has nothing to do with what's best.

The language in answer C, though, mirrors that of the stimulus: "X is possible only if Y". That is the kind of language we should want in our answer, so that doesn't kill it but rather makes it attractive. The problem with it is that it makes no connection to the "new" element in the conclusion, which is "objective evaluation", nor does it connect to the "rogue" element in the premises, which is "aesthetic value discussed".

You are right that "for" (synonymous in this usage with "because" or "since") is a premise indicator, so that phrase after the semicolon is a premise and not a conclusion.

Answer B's big problem is that it fails to link to the discussion of aesthetic value, except perhaps by implying a mistaken reversal. The relationship in that premise is:

Aesthetic Value Can Be Discussed Two People agree

Answer B is trying to get you to reverse that and get from two people agreeing to their being able to discuss aesthetic value. Don't go backwards!

Looks like you're doing a great job. Keep at it!

[EmilyLSAT22]

Hi, is answer choice A incorrect because it is basically restating something that is already in the stimulus? Thank you!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Emily,
Not quite, Answer choice A is not repeating something that has already been said. The stimulus is saying that if it is possible to determine the aesthetic value of a poem then at least 2 readers must have agreed on the the correct interpretation of the poem. But Answer choice A is essentially saying that the only way for a particular person to be able to judge the aesthetic value of a poem is for that person to have the same interpretation of the poem as someone else.
Hope that helps!
-Malila