Top Law Schools

Could someone please help me diagram this?

I got as far as:

WPE = writer whose purpose is personal experission
SA = sometimes ambiguous
P = poet
RE = reader's enjoyment
APU = attain precise understanding



Evidence:
WPE -> SA
P -> WPE

Leads to:
P -> SA


Conclusion:
RE -> ~APU

But then I realized that "not attaining a precise understanding" is the same as "being ambiguous" so:

RE -> SA (Is this wrong?)

Which gets me:

Evidence:
P -> SA (poets are sometimes ambiguous)

Conclusion:
RE -> SA (reader's enjoyment is based on sometimes ambiguous)

Sufficient assumption:
RE -> P

WTF

Also got this one wrong. Here's what I make of the question:

1) All poets are sometimes ambiguous.
2) (answer choice) No writers who are ever ambiguous (poets) have a reader whose enjoyment depends on non-ambiguity.
:.3) No poetry readers' enjoyment depends on non-ambiguity of the poet.

Seems to make sense to me this way.

bump