PT 55 Section 3 #24

User avatar
jpSartre
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am

PT 55 Section 3 #24

Postby jpSartre » Fri May 28, 2010 2:16 pm

I cannot figure out what's going on here for the life of me. Any help would be very appreciated.

User avatar
confusedlawyer
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 11:21 am

Re: PT 55 Section 3 #24

Postby confusedlawyer » Fri May 28, 2010 2:40 pm

The argument starts out by discussing a popular belief, and then in the second sentence claims that this popular belief cannot be true because it is contradictory. The third sentence is the premise offered as support for the conclusion.

The argument is implying that objectively evaluating a poem can only be accomplished if the claim that the reader gives a poem meaning is false. The argument goes further in stating that the aesthetic value (different from meaning of poem) can only be discussed if at least 2 people share the same view.

The answer (D) tries to be confusing, but you have to recognize that "A given poem can be objectively evaluated only if the poem's aesthetic value can be discussed". Meaning that only if 2 or more people have the correct interpretation can the aesthetic value be discussed, and ONLY IF this, can a poem be objectively evaluated.

A states that only if 2 people find the same meaning can they judge the aesthetic value, however the argument states that they can DISCUSS the aethstetic value, not judge it.

B is outside the scope, the argument only states that with 2 readers agreeing is objective evaluation possible, however it doesn't say it is the only criteria

C confuses the 2 ideas of discussion of a poem with objective evaluation of a poem

E is clearly wrong because it talks about literature, not poetry.


This is a tough question, I got lucky I guess because assumption questions seem to be easy for me. I just did this test yesterday pretty hard

User avatar
jpSartre
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am

Re: PT 55 Section 3 #24

Postby jpSartre » Fri May 28, 2010 7:05 pm

Thank you sir (madam), I'm going to go through your post once I get a chance to sit down with the test.

User avatar
Philipsssssss
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:57 pm

Re: PT 55 Section 3 #24

Postby Philipsssssss » Fri May 28, 2010 7:23 pm

24.

Watch for the many ways in which an “if-then”
relationship might be phrased.

Many people believe that the individual reader assigns
meaning to a poem. But the argument concludes that
we can objectively assess a poem only if this is false;
in other words, only if meaning can be assigned by two
or more readers working together. In formal logic
terms, this translates to “If poem objectively evaluated
→ two or more readers assign meaning.” And “for”
signals the evidence: We can’t discuss the aesthetic
value of a poem unless two or more readers can agree
on a poem’s interpretation. This translates to “If
aesthetic value discussed → two or more readers
assign meaning.” So then the assumption that
connects the evidence to the conclusion would say “If
poem objectively evaluated → aesthetic value
discussed.” Add this assumption to the given evidence
and the conclusion follows. This formal logic
assumption is equivalent to (D). (Remember that “If X
→ Y” is the same as “X only if Y.”)

(A) The argument merely concerns discussing
aesthetic value, which isn’t the same as actually
determining that a poem has aesthetic value.
Besides,(A) doesn’t include anything about objective evaluation
of a poem.

(B) reverses the order of the formal logic terms in the
conclusion, and doesn’t connect it to the evidence,
which discusses the aesthetic value of a poem.

(C) is too general, referring to “discussion of a poem”
without mentioning aesthetic value. Also, like (A), (C)
makes no mention of objectively evaluating a poem.

(E) broadens the Scope of the argument too much. The
argument says that at least two readers are required
for discussion of the aesthetic value of a poem. This is
a far cry from requiring that more than two readers are
required to evaluate the aesthetics of literature in
general.

User avatar
confusedlawyer
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 11:21 am

Re: PT 55 Section 3 #24

Postby confusedlawyer » Fri May 28, 2010 8:12 pm

The guy who answered below me seems to have done more "LSAT" type reasoning why the answers were right or wrong while mine looks much more simplified I assume. Either way you look at it should work, as with my method I did get the correct answer.

User avatar
theZeigs
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm

Re: PT 55 Section 3 #24

Postby theZeigs » Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:31 am

confusedlawyer wrote:The guy who answered below me seems to have done more "LSAT" type reasoning why the answers were right or wrong while mine looks much more simplified I assume. Either way you look at it should work, as with my method I did get the correct answer.


Philipsssssss wrote:24.

Many people believe that the individual reader assigns
meaning to a poem. But the argument concludes that
we can objectively assess a poem only if this is false;
in other words, only if meaning can be assigned by two
or more readers working together. In formal logic
terms, this translates to “If poem objectively evaluated
→ two or more readers assign meaning.” And “for”
signals the evidence: We can’t discuss the aesthetic
value of a poem unless two or more readers can agree
on a poem’s interpretation. This translates to “If
aesthetic value discussed → two or more readers
assign meaning.” So then the assumption that
connects the evidence to the conclusion would say “If
poem objectively evaluated → aesthetic value
discussed.” Add this assumption to the given evidence
and the conclusion follows. This formal logic
assumption is equivalent to (D). (Remember that “If X
→ Y” is the same as “X only if Y.”)


I actually like Phillips answer here (no offense confusedlawyer!), I find the mechanical/mathematical solving of these problems very useful. I think that this is a great problem for people to review because I think that this is about as difficult as any LR problem.

Philipsssssss wrote:
Watch for the many ways in which an “if-then”
relationship might be phrased.


This is good advice, like I was saying above re: mathematical solving of LR problems; you have in the argument one "only if" and one "unless," both of which introduce necessary conditions. This should be a clue that you can diagram this question and figure out what is going on.

FWIW, one other piece of advice, and the reason I got this problem right: when you see a difficult problem like this and you don't diagram, you can look at the important "parts" of the argument, much like looking at a RC passage. The argument discusses "meaning of a poem," "objective evaluation of poetry," "aesthetic value of poetry," and "correct interpretation of a poem." The first and fourth things in this list are pretty much the same thing (meaning ~= interpretation, or at least that's a very reasonable assumption to make) but the 2nd and 3rd thing are quite different. So look for the AC that links these two pieces.

This is a much less rigorous method for solving these problems, but if you're pressed for time or just want to put down a "placeholder" guess that you can come back to, I've found that this method is generally a good place to start.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Bing [Bot], clueless801, jagerbom79, MSNbot Media and 12 guests