#2 - The poet E. E. Cummings stood for the individual human

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify. The correct answer choice is (B).

The author concludes that E. E. Cummings stood against something essential to his work. The stimulus also tells us what was essential to his work in the final premise (after the word "since"). In order to understand this relationship, we have to recognize two things: "essential" is a conditional indicator - specifically, a necessary condition indicator. Second, that last premise uses conditional language itself, setting up what's necessary (thus, "essential") to Cummings's poetry.

The conditional diagram of the final premise is as follows:

metaphor literal language regimentation

Thus, by a chain of conditionals, regimentation is essential to metaphor, or: metaphor regimentation

Consider now the first premise of the argument - Cummings was against regimentation. But we know that regimentation is essential to metaphor. So if Cummings used metaphor in his poetry, he stood against something (regimentation) that was essential for the metaphor he used in his poetry. The conclusion would follow if Cummings used metaphor. So the argument isn't good yet, but would be perfect if Cummings used metaphor. Since this is a Justify question, and our job is to make the argument perfect, we want this concept to be true:

Cummings used metaphor in his poetry.

Answer choice (A): It doesn't matter what other poets do. It matters what Cummings did, and this proves nothing about him.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If metaphor was essential to Cummings's poetry, and (per the last premise of the stimulus) regimentation is essential to metaphor, then Cummings was against something essential to his poetry. That itself is the conclusion, which now follows.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice allows a conditional to be drawn, using the Unless Equation:

literal language metaphor

That's a reversal of part of the last premise. The issue is that that does no good in proving the conclusion! What did Cummings do, and how did he stand against something essential to his own poetry? We still don't know, so this answer is no help.

Answer choice (D): This answer proves nothing. If this answer were true, then metaphor, requiring regimentation, per the last premise, could not exist in poetry. That's probably bad for the argument, and certainly not good for it.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice entails that Cummings did not use metaphor. Since metaphor does require regimentation, it's hard to see how Cummings's not using metaphor would be helpful to the argument, much less Justify the Conclusion. If Cummings did not use metaphor, what did he do that conflicted with his stance against regimentation? The argument is in worse shape, not better.

[theamazingrace]

Can someone please explain what the "something" Cummings stood against? Is it that Cummings stood against literal language but was in support of metaphors?

Thanks

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Grace,

The stimulus tells us that Cummings stood against regimentation and standardization. This is important because it continues by telling us that regimentation and/or standardization was essential to the work the poet did. We can draw out the rest of the stimulus as below:

metaphor literal language regimentation

That's a fine chain, however, the author of the stimulus did not provide us anything to link the chain to Cummings. We are looking for something in the correct answer choice to link that chain to Cumming's work. That's what our correct answer choice does. Answer choice (B) says that metaphor was a critical part of Cummings work. That links Cumming's work to the chain, meaning that his work requires the same regimentation that he was against.

Hope that helps!

[theamazingrace]

Hi Grace,

The stimulus tells us that Cummings stood against regimentation and standardization. This is important because it continues by telling us that regimentation and/or standardization was essential to the work the poet did. We can draw out the rest of the stimulus as below:

metaphor literal language regimentation

That's a fine chain, however, the author of the stimulus did not provide us anything to link the chain to Cummings. We are looking for something in the correct answer choice to link that chain to Cumming's work. That's what our correct answer choice does. Answer choice (B) says that metaphor was a critical part of Cummings work. That links Cumming's work to the chain, meaning that his work requires the same regimentation that he was against.

Hope that helps!

So, is it fair to say that the conclusion is "Yet in doing so Cummings stood against something essential to the work he did"? If that is the correct conclusion it is properly drawn if metaphors were an essential part of the pomes Cummings did because metaphors involve literal language which involves regimentation making him against something that is embedded in the work he did

Thanks

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Grace!

Yes, the conclusion of this argument is "in doing so Cummings stood against something essential to the work he did." The word "since" is a good indicator word. When you have the word "since," the half of the sentence modified by "since" is a premise to support the other half of the sentence, which is some type of conclusion.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[boehmejayne@gmail.com]

Thus, this is a justify the conclusion question (sufficient assumption), correct?

[boehmejayne@gmail.com]

Oops, I see "Justify" in the first post now.