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

[mahsan]

Hi I was stuck between A and D and chose D, but need some help solidifying my understanding of why A is wrong. The post before mine has an explanation that I'd like clarification on. Is finding the same meaning in a poem, like A suggests, different than agreeing on the correct interpretation of the poem? Is that the error with A?

[Brook Miscoski]

Mahsan,

The post above yours clarifies that (A) does not simply repeat information that is found in the passage. Thus, it's not an attempt to explain why (A) is wrong, it's instead a correct explanation of why (A) is not a repetition of the passage.

Because the conclusion associates objective evaluation and agreement between readers, while the premise associates aesthetic evaluation and the agreement between readers, you have a "gap" or "missing link" between objective evaluation and aesthetic evaluation. (D), the correct choice, identifies such a link. (A) does not link the disparate elements together, and should not be a contender. That is the best way to choose between (A) and (D).

An alternative is to negate A and test its effect. Negated, (A) says that two people can judge that a poem has aesthetic value even if they don't find the same meaning. However, since judging that something has value is not the same as being able to discuss its value, (A) sheds no light on the stimulus--(A) is irrelevant information, because the stimulus is concerned with discussion.

[mahsan]

Thanks so much Brook! That was very helpful.

[LSAT student]

Hello,

I narrowed this to answers C and D, and these were my diagrams:

Stimulus: Value of a poem can be discussed Possible for 2 readers to agree

Poem doesn't have whatever meaning assigned by the reader objective evaluation

C) Value of poem can be discussed Poem doesn't have whatever meaning assigned by the reader

D) Value of poem can be discussed objective evaluation

At any rate, I doubted both of my diagrams and tried using the assumption negation technique, which led me to choose answer (B) instead. Please help!

[Frank Peter]

Hi LSAT Student,

I think part of the issue here is that this is a mistaken reversal:

Poem doesn't have whatever meaning assigned by the reader objective evaluation

This should instead be diagrammed as:

objective evaluation ~Poem has whatever meaning assigned by the reader

(Note: I find it easier to negate an affirmative statement when doing conditional reasoning. Try it out and see what you think. Otherwise sometimes it can start becoming difficult to follow, especially when you have long chains of conditional reasoning.)

The missing link here would then be the reverse of what you had for (D). So instead of

Value of poem can be discussed objective evaluation

it should be

objective evaluation Value of poem can be discussed.

[LSAT student]

Got it! Thanks!!

[ashpine17]

Just in everyday world language, why does it have to be a necessity to be able to discuss the aesthetic value of a poem in order to evaluate it objectively?

[Adam Tyson]

I'll try, ashpine17!

The author believes that to discuss the aesthetic value of a poem, two people have to agree about what that poem means. In other words, the poem's meaning is not subjective. That's the premise.

Based on that premise, the author concludes that objective evaluation can only happen if a poem doesn't have whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader. One way to interpret that requirement is that a poem must have a true and correct meaning, rather than being subjective.

So the author has determined that because a discussion on aesthetics requires there being some actual correct meaning, it must also be true that objective evaluation requires that correct meaning. There's a gap between those two sufficient conditions - aesthetic discussion and objective evaluation. The author must have assumed that those two things are connected, because otherwise there is no support for the conclusion. Thus, the assumption this author must have made is that objective evaluation requires a discussion of aesthetics.

[Relaxo]

Hi,

I read through everything and still don't get the hang, here is my attempt:

Info from text:

(1) AV (Asthethic Value) -> AL2 (at least two readers can agree on correct interpretation of the poem)
(2) OE (objective evaluation) -> not PMAR (poem meaning assigned by reader)

In total, the argument says (1) -> (2), which is equivalent to:

AV -> AL2 -> OE -> not PMAR

I narrowed it down to D and C. Now I negate C and D to see if that would crush the argument:

not (C): not(Discussion is possible -> not PMAR) <=> Discussion possible and PMAR

How doesn't this crush the argument? Not (C) says that poems meaning is assigned by reader

[Adam Tyson]

You're overlooking one crucial aspect of answer C here, Relaxo: it never talks about "aesthetic value." The author doesn't have to assume anything about discussing poems in a general sense, but only that objective evaluation requires a discussion specifically about aesthetic value. This author might have no problem with two people causally discussing a poem, like so:

Relaxo: Hey Adam, did you see that new poem?
Adam: Yeah, it was really confusing. I don't know what it meant, do you?
Relaxo: Nope, but I suppose it means whatever you want it to mean.
Adam: Maybe so, Relaxo!

Our author would say we were wrong, because if that was true we would be unable to discuss the aesthetic value of the poem. But that wouldn't mean we couldn't discuss something else about it!

Also, take another look at the negation of answer C. To negate a conditional statement like that, you just need to say that the supposed necessary condition is not actually necessary. In this case, that might look like this:

Discussing a poem is possible even if it's true that a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader.

This doesn't ruin the argument, because the author never said you cannot "discuss" a poem under these circumstances. The author only said you cannot discuss the "aesthetic value" of that poem in that case. Talk about other aspects of the poem all you want!