Q24 - It is popularly believed

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting.

This is a good example of how important it is to wade through the clutter and identify the core, which looks something like this:

P: aesthetic value of a poem can't be discussed until two readers can agree on the correct interpretation
--------->
C: objective evaluation of a poem is possible only if it's false that a poem only has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader

Once we set it up like that, I think the logical gap jumps out at us: in the premise, we're talking about whether the aesthetic value can be discussed, but in the conclusion, we're talking about whether a poem can be evaluated objectively! So the author is assuming that discussing the aesthetic value is necessary in order to objectively evaluate a poem.

Answer (D) makes that assumption explicit. Now let's try negating it (make sure you're negating assumptions properly): discussing the aesthetic value of a poem is not necessary in order to objectively evaluate it. Well, if that were true, then we couldn't conclude that objective evaluation depends on the reader-interpretation belief being false!

(A) is out of scope. The argument talks about whether aesthetic value can be discussed, not whether readers can judge whether a poem has it at all.

(B) is tempting, but it reverses the logic of the argument. We're told that it's necessary for two people to find the same meaning in a poem in order for it to be evaluated objectively. That's not the same thing as saying that two people finding the same meaning is sufficient to evaluate it objectively.

(C) is tempting, but it's too broad in scope. The argument says it's impossible to discuss the aesthetic value in this case, not that it's impossible to discuss the poem at all.

(E) is way out of scope. The argument isn't at all concerned with the "best" method of evaluating poetry, nor with the relative effectiveness of two versus more than two readers.

Does that answer your question? This is a confusing problem. Please let me know if you're still lost.


#officialexplanation

[bermudask8er7]

Can you explain the reasoning in the stimulus and why D is correct? I don't understand why D is an assumption required by the argument. I don't see how negating D harms the argument either.

Thanks.

[peg_city]

I'm trying conditional logic for this one.

Conclusion
OE -> ~MABR
Premise
~MABR -> ~AVPD

D) OE -> AVPD

Why is D right in this situation. Should it read OE -> ~AVPD?
I don't get how come we are not negating AVPD when we combine it with the conclusion.

It also doesn't help that the contra-positive does nothing in this situation.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

This seems like a question where using conditional logic is probably more trouble than it's worth. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, you have the premise messed up. We're told that discussing the aesthetic value requires the possibility of at least two readers agreeing on the meaning. In other words, if aesthetic value can be discussed, it has to be true that a poem does not have whatever meaning a reader assigns to it. So what we have is this:

AV --> ~MABR
-------------
OE --> ~MABR

Assumption: OE --> AV

Does that clear it up?

[lhermary]

Thanks for posting!

This seems like a question where using conditional logic is probably more trouble than it's worth. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, you have the premise messed up. We're told that discussing the aesthetic value requires the possibility of at least two readers agreeing on the meaning. In other words, if aesthetic value can be discussed, it has to be true that a poem does not have whatever meaning a reader assigns to it. So what we have is this:

AV --> ~MABR
-------------
OE --> ~MABR

Assumption: OE --> AV

Does that clear it up?

Thanks for posting!

This seems like a question where using conditional logic is probably more trouble than it's worth. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, you have the premise messed up. We're told that discussing the aesthetic value requires the possibility of at least two readers agreeing on the meaning. In other words, if aesthetic value can be discussed, it has to be true that a poem does not have whatever meaning a reader assigns to it. So what we have is this:

AV --> ~MABR
-------------
OE --> ~MABR

Assumption: OE --> AV

Does that clear it up?

You mentioned there is any easier way. How so? What's the short cut?

Thanks

[giladedelman]

Ha ha, no, sorry, there's no short cut! I just meant it might be easier to read the argument for understanding without going into diagramming the conditional logic. See my explanation above.

[goriano]

Thanks for posting!

This seems like a question where using conditional logic is probably more trouble than it's worth. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, you have the premise messed up. We're told that discussing the aesthetic value requires the possibility of at least two readers agreeing on the meaning. In other words, if aesthetic value can be discussed, it has to be true that a poem does not have whatever meaning a reader assigns to it. So what we have is this:

AV --> ~MABR
-------------
OE --> ~MABR

Assumption: OE --> AV

Does that clear it up?

How did you know that the two necessary conditions in the premise and conclusion of the stimulus referred to the same thing? (defined as ~MABR in your set up)

Premise: Discussion of Aesthetic Value (AV) --> possibility of two readers agreeing on the correct interpretation

Conclusion: Objective Evaluation --> poem doesn't have whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader

Couldn't two readers assign the same meaning to a poem, thereby also agreeing on the correct interpretation?

[giladedelman]

Wow, super intelligent question. I agree that there's nothing stopping two readers from coming to the same interpretation. So I think we can say that this is another assumption made by this argument. In other words, answer (D) is necessary to get from the premise to the conclusion, but it's not sufficient because we still have this other issue you identified: we have to assume that if a poem has whatever meaning a reader assigns to it, then two readers can't agree on the correct meaning.

Does that answer your question? Great observation.

[americano1990]

Just a buildup from what the LSAT geeks have already covered.
But if there is a shortcut to this question,I'd say it would be the following.
The conclusion is about objective evaluation.
The premise is about aesthetic value.
The assumption is that those two ideas are somehow related. Or in other words, aesthetic value is relevant to objective evaluation.
And go through the answer choices and find out for yourself that only (D) makes any sort of connection between those two ideas.

[dcrosspepper]

Using these two parts of the stimulus:

"It is popularly believed that a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader"
&
"...aesthetic value cannot be discussed unless it is possible for at least two readers to agree on the correct interpretation of the poem."

Could we make the assumption: If a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader, then it cannot be that at least two readers agree on the correct interpretation of the poem. ?

I'm kind of confused because the first statement seems to only provide context whereas the second statement is a premise for this argument. I'm currently under the impression that assumptions could only be made between the conclusion and the premises that support it.

[pewals13]

The Mission:

Determine which assumption must be true in order for the conclusion of the argument to hold

The Core:

Aesthetic value of
a poem discussed

----->

Possible for at least two
readers to agree on the
the correct interpretation
of a poem

-----------------------------------------

Objective evaluation
of poetry possible

----->

Belief that a poem's meaning
is whatever the reader thinks
is false

The Gaps:

With such confusing conditional language I decided to look and see what needed to link in the chain of logic. Since you know the conclusion's sufficient condition must be the first chain in the whole argument and the conclusion's necessary condition must be the last in the chain I would look to link "objective evaluation" with "aesthetic value" or "possible for at least two readers to agree on an objective interpretation" with the "belief that poem's meaning is whatever the reader thinks is false"

Basically you have

AV--->PFTPA
_______
OE--->~MABR

You're looking either for

OE--->AV
or
PFTPA--->~MABR

or anything in between that is necessary for this chain:

OE--->AV---->PFTPA---->~MABR

Answer Choices:

(A) Out of Scope: This tries to link the two ends of the logic chain

AV---->PFPTA---->OE----->~MABR

Ultimately the terms do not match up, this answer choice is too broad.

(B) Out of Scope (too strong): A contender because it links the premise with the conclusion, but just remember that a necessary assumption needs to help turn the elements of the conclusion into bookends for the premises. This answer choice does not do that.

What you want:

Conclusion sufficient ----> Premise sufficient----> Premise necessary ---------> Conclusion necessary

What this answer choice does:

Premise sufficient ----> Premise necessary----> Conclusion sufficient----->Conclusion necessary

(C) Out of Scope: This would be correct if it stated that: "Discussion of the aesthetic value of a poem is possible only if it is false that a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader" instead it is too broad stating that: "Discussion of [i]A [/i] poem requires blah blah blah to be false."

(D) CORRECT: This is what you want. It provides the OE---->AV link.

(E) Out of Scope: The issue in the stimulus does not concern the way in which an aesthetic evaluation can be BEST accomplished, but rather, whether it can be accomplished at all.



A critique would be much appreciated. I struggled with this one. Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

To the previous poster, I think you nailed a big part of why this question is pretty tricky to understand.

Arguments can contain multiple assumptions, and sometimes we need to play along with the author's thinking just to figure out his intended meaning.

As that poster noted, this author is thinking:
If poems have whatever meaning you wanna assign them
THEN
It's impossible for people to agree on the CORRECT meaning
WHICH MEANS
The aesthetic value can't be discussed
WHICH MEANS
Objective evaluation of a poem is impossible.

In terms of critiquing the previous post ... VERY NICELY done on the conditional logic. While I don't really endorse that approach for most Necessary Assumption questions, you did a great job of nailing the correct directionality of all the conditional statements. And since the argument contains two conditional ideas and four of the five answer choices are conditional, it definitely DOES pay to consider the conditional logic here.

I thought the stuff you wrote for (B) was weird:
B) Out of Scope (too strong): A contender because it links the premise with the conclusion, but just remember that a necessary assumption needs to help turn the elements of the conclusion into bookends for the premises.

The "bookends" idea is for Sufficient Assumption, not Necessary. You shouldn't be "expecting" what a Necessary Assumption answer has to do. Be more flexible with these. Some correct answers provide missing links (these can usually be anticipated in advance); other correct answers rule out potential objections or alternative interpretations (these can rarely be anticipated in advance).

I just got worried that you're blurring the lines between Necessary and Sufficient assumption (the former is almost never worth diagramming conditionally, whereas the latter is almost always worth doing so).

The easiest way to get rid of (B) is simply the reversed conditional logic of it. (which is what you still DID point out ... it was just the framing "bookends" part that seemed off)

The author thinks
if it's not possible for two readers to agree about the meaning, then an objective evaluation CANNOT be made.

(B) is just a false negation of that (plus a tiny language shift).

====

If I were to make a global suggestion for how to think about this problem, I would suggest taking the two ideas in the Conclusion and considering what they're intended match was in the evidence.

Conclusion idea 1:
"Objective evaluation of poetry is possible/impossible"

What is that intended to match up with?
"Discussing the aesthetic value of a poem is possible/impossible"

Conclusion idea 2:
"you can't just say that a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it" [this popular belief is false]

What is that intended to match up with?
"it needs to be possible for at least two people to agree on the correct interpretation of a poem"

I would then play along with those language gaps and assemble the author's thinking in his intended order:

If poems have whatever meaning you wanna assign them
THEN
It's impossible for people to agree on the CORRECT meaning
WHICH MEANS
The aesthetic value can't be discussed
WHICH MEANS
Objective evaluation of a poem is impossible.

(A) is close, but the argument's missing link is about whether two people can agree on the CORRECT interpretation in order to DISCUSS the aesthetic value. This is about arriving at the SAME meaning in order to judge WHETHER it has aesthetic value.

(B) This is a false negation of the author's logic.

(C) The author doesn't give a rule for what makes DISCUSSION of a poem possible, just "discussion of aesthetic value".

(D) This is the same as saying "if the aesthetic value can't be discussed, then a poem can't be objectively evaluated". This matches the author's thinking.

(E) "best" is extreme and out of scope.

Nice work!

[mcervantesucb]

How did you determine what was the premise and conclusion of the stimulus? I thought the "objective evaluation" part was the premise and "aesthetic value" was the conclusion. Does ";" or "for" in the middle of the stimulus determines that the following phrase is the premise?

[dontmesswmeow]

I solved the given problem as below.

Premise: {~(at least 2 agreement) => ~(AV discussion) } => (~WM)

Conclusion: OE -> ~WM

*AV discussion: Aesthetic Value discussion
WM: Whatever Meaning---therefore, by (~WM), I meant NOT whatever meaning, merely for my convenience in solving problems.

You see the 'conditional within the Premise', which is surrounded by the middle parenthesis { }, right?

So Its contrapositive, or logical equivalent is

{ AV discussion => at least 2 agreement }.

Correct?

So the required assumption follows as this:

Obj. Ev => (AV discussion -> at least 2 agreeement)

Since the question asks us to find a necessary assumption which doesn't have to bridge the entire gap between the premise and the conclusion,
the Answer Choice (D) can work in this case even though it only addresses part of the gap, which can be represented as below:

(D) Obj.Ev=> AV discussion

Hope this adds a better sense to this clearinghouse!

[andrewgong01]

I am confused on where everyone is getting what I have quoted below:

I solved the given problem as below.

Premise: {~(at least 2 agreement) => ~(AV discussion) } => (~WM)

Conclusion: OE -> ~WM
!

What I agree and understand and follow till with previous posts is :

If you can discuss the aesthetic value then at least 2 people agree on interpretation.

Conclusion: If objective then meaning is NOT whatever is assigned.


I understand from "at least 2 people agree on interpretation =meaning is NOT whatever is assigned" then the assumption is that discussing aesthetic value leads to objective meaning, Choice D. However, I do not understand how we got to the part I have quoted above/ put in blue


This seems to be more like a SA than NA question with this approach. I think the short cut would have been to narrow to "B" and "D" since they are the only ones that seem right since it contains elements from both the premise and conclusion and move on unless there is time

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're saying it feels like SA because it's giving us conditional logic and testing us on finding a missing link.

(Also because the NEW GUY in the conclusion, "objective evaluation", is bound to be in the right answer ... which does quickly bring us down to B and D).

If we say, "The meaning of a poem is whatever meaning a reader assigns to it",
does that mean, "It is impossible for at least two readers to agree on the correct interpretation of the poem"?

I don't think those are equivalent.

The fact that that gap still remains, even once we have (D), is why they couldn't call this an SA question.

The easiest way to get this problem, for my money, is simply to use common keywords like "But" and "for" to diagnose that the 2nd claim is the conclusion and the 3rd is the primary premise.

Find the new guy in the conclusion --- "Objective evaluation of poetry" requires something ... after all, Discussing aesthetic value of a poem requires something."

[krisk743]

I have a quick question about 24. (Untimed) I got to a/c (D) by quickly noticing two words that jumped out at me, aesthetic value and objectively.

I still don't even understand what the question is saying and feel like diagramming conditional logic would just confuse me even more. Was my approach not a correct method - assuming i'm taking this timed and am struggling to even understand what the stimulus is trying to say - or is this a way that lots of people reach a/c D.


Thanks in advance

[abrenza123]

I understand that B is a reversal of the author's logic, and as an SA question I would be able to recognize that and move on. I am overthinking the negation test and how it destroys the argument with incorrect reversal/negation ACs in NA questions....

for purposes of clarity and to solidify understanding, the negation of B would be:

"if two readers agree about the meaning of a poem, that DOES NOT ensure an objective evaluation of the poem can be made"

and that negation would destroy the argument because while two readers agreeing is REQUIRED, it does not ENSURE because ensure implies sufficiency/would be a trigger, correct?

Also to clarify, the negation of the conditional would be noted as ~(TRA --> OE), as slash over the entire conditional or "its not the case that two readers agree...ensures OE" yes?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, your interpretations of how we negate a conditional idea were both accurate. I'll propose a third in a sec, but I was really confused by this thing you said:

I am overthinking the negation test and how it destroys the argument with incorrect reversal/negation ACs in NA questions....

for purposes of clarity and to solidify understanding, the negation of B would be:

"if two readers agree about the meaning of a poem, that DOES NOT ensure an objective evaluation of the poem can be made"

and that negation would destroy the argument because while two readers agreeing is REQUIRED, it does not ENSURE because ensure implies sufficiency/would be a trigger, correct?


It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of the Negation Test.

On Necessary Assumption (only),
the correct answer, if negated, will weaken the argument
the incorrect answers, if negated, will not weaken the argument

Since you're looking at an incorrect answer (B), negating it will not weaken the argument.

CONSIDER THIS EXAMPLE:
Debbie applied to Duke. Thus, Debbie wants to go to a good school.

Nec Assump
(A) Duke is a good school

not a Nec Assump
(B) Duke is a top 5 school

the negation of (A), "Duke is not a good school", weakens the argument
the negation of (B), "Duke is not a top 5 school", doesn't weaken the argument

That's a way for us to know that (A) is a better answer than (B).

Anyhoo, I recommend that people never try negating conditionals. Not only do most people (though not you) mess up how to negate them, it's also just not as useful an application of the negation test.

When I see a conditional logic answer on Nec Assump, I just ask myself "Did the author make that move, in that order, with total certainty/equivalence?"

Most conditional logic answer choices would be wrong because they have the parts out of order (reversed or negated) or because the author hedged her wording.

EXAMPLE:
Bob is left handed. Thus, he's probably clumsy.

I cannot say the author assumed "If left handed, then clumsy", because the author hedged her wording when she made that move .... "PROBABLY clumsy".

But ....
EXAMPLE:
Bob is left handed. Thus, Bob is clumsy.

Here we can say this IS a necessary assumption
A) If someone is left handed, then they are clumsy.

When you negate a conditional, you're just saying "IT'S NOT THE CASE that this permanent, universal connection exists between the left side and right side idea."

More conversationally, you're saying "There is AT LEAST ONE counterexample to this conditional".

If I negated (A), it would be saying
"there is at least one person who is left handed but not clumsy".

Does that negation weaken the argument about Bob?
Sure. It introduces some doubt. Bob might not be clumsy.

Does it feel like the typical Negation Test Takedown of the author? Not to me. That's why I don't see the point in negating conditional answers. You don't get the usual payoff off "Whoa ... when I negate that, I'm really counterpunching the argument".

So the negation of (B) in this question is saying,
"There is at least one case in which two readers agreed about meaning of a poem but it was NOT possible to make an objective evaluation."

And the negation of (D) is saying
"There is at least one case in which objective evaluation was possible, even though it was impossible to discuss the poem's aesthetic value."

The negation of (D) weakens. The negation of (B) does not.

Hope this helps.

[BarryM800]

I must respectfully disagree with Pat's following example.

"Bob is left handed. Thus, Bob is clumsy.
Here, we can say this IS a necessary assumption.
(A) If someone is left handed, then they are clumsy."

(A) is actually a sufficient assumption to allow you to draw the conclusion from the premise. But (A) is too strong. I don't need "everyone" who's left handed to be clumsy. I just need "Bob" to be clumsy to make the argument. A necessary assumption in that case would be: If someone is left handed, then it is possible that s/he is clumsy.

Any thoughts? Thanks!