#16 - All poets, aside from those who write only epigrams,

[d_mgz14]

I'm having trouble identifying the flaw here. If all poets, except those who write only epigrams have wit, than shouldn't it follow that anyone who is a poet who does not only write epigrams has wit? In other words having wit is the necessary condition for being a poet who does not only write epigrams. And we know that all lyrical composers are poets hence they have wit, if they do not write only epigrams. Arzriel is a lyrical composer ( thus a poet) who does not write epigrams. So shouldn't it follow he has wit?

[Jonathan Evans]

D_MGZ,

You are correct; there is no flaw here. It is a parallel the reasoning question. The arguments in the stimulus and in the credited response are both logically valid.

• only epigrams & poet wit
  lyrical composer poet
  Ariel: lyrical composer & epigrams
  Conclusion: Ariel has wit.

As Ariel is both a poet and not an exclusive epigrammarian, in fact, not an epigram-writer at all, he has wit.

(E) matches this structure.

I hope this helps!

[nrpandolfo]

How would you diagram answer choice A?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi nprandolfo,
Answer A would be diagrammed as:
Premise: (If) NOT squeeze toy & Safe for infants --> (then) cats
Premise: (If) Squeeze toy --> (then) Prewrapped
Conclusion: (If) NOT cats & Squeeze toy --> Safe for infants

Hope that helps!
-Malila

[kennypark17]

hello,

if answer A) stated that "this item is not designed for cats and is a squeeze toy..." would that have made A) correct?

[Jennifer Janowsky]

Kenny,

In this new stimulus, this answer would be much closer to a parallel argument. The only difference would be that in the stimulus, a new element (lyrical composers) is introduced as the sufficient condition, whereas in (A), the new element (prewrapped) is introduced as the sufficient condition.

This answer is still much, much closer than the original. However, whether or not it would be correct would depend on whether any of the other answer choices were closer! So... maybe!

I hope that helps, you're definitely on the right track.

[bebeg3168]

Hi,
In the first line of this stimulus:
All Poets(P) --->have wit(W)
All Poets(P) ---> ~write epigrams
LC --->P
A ---> ~write epigrams
C: A ---> W

The "only" in the first sentence told me a necessary condition. Am I mistaken in this case? If so what could the reason be? Any help greatly appreciated.

[Adam Tyson]

The phrase "aside from" means that those people are an exception to whom the rule does not apply. In essence, it means that if you are a poet who does not have wit, then you write only epigrams. Or, put another way, if you are a poet who writes something other than epigrams, you have wit. Thus, the rule does not apply to all poets, but to all poets who write something besides epigrams (which could mean you write epigrams and some other types of poetry, or you don't write epigrams at all).

While we could put this "only" into a conditional relationship as part of a multi-conditional relationship with the other two terms (poet and wit), it is not a simple "if this, then that" conditional the way you wrote it. Being a poet does not prove that you do not write epigrams.

One more way to see the relationship:

If you are a poet, then you either have wit or else you write only epigrams.