PT 57, Sec 2, Q 24 & 25 Forum

[hazara]

Can some one plz explain why the answer is correct for Q 24 and what is the difference between C and E in answer choices 25. I can see why C is correct but I cannot figure out why E is incorrect for question 25. thanks.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

For #24:

• PREMISES: A writer of a great poem does not intend it to communicate contradictory ideas.
  Some readers read a great poem and believe that the poem expresses contradictory ideas.
  CONCLUSION: The meaning of a poem is *not* simply whatever the author intends to communicate.

We have the new idea 'meaning' introduced in the conclusion, and that it can't be 'author intention'. Why not? All we know about 'author intention' is that it is not a contradictory idea. So, for this conclusion to make sense, we need to connect 'meaning' to 'contradictory idea' somehow.

(E) makes this connection. If a reader believes that a poem expresses something (like contradictory ideas), then that is part of the meaning. If this is true, and our premise gives us that sometimes readers believe contradictory ideas are expressed in great poems, then that means that sometimes the poem has contradictory ideas in its meaning. And if that were true, then meaning couldn't be the same as what the author intends - since we know the author can't possibly intend contradictory ideas.

Try negating it: If whatever a reader believes does *not* necessarily become part of 'meaning', then the idea of 'meaning' is unattached in this argument. The conclusion makes no sense, because we don't have any information about how the concept of 'meaning' relates to anything we've been given!

Does that help a bit?

[Christine (MLSAT)]

For #25 (Inference/Must be true):

• The law:
  IF contribution is 1) more than $100 and 2) made by a nonresident and 3) made by a non-former-resident
  THEN the contribution must be registered with the city council
  
  The facts:
  Brimley's campaign ONLY has contributions from residents and former residents.
  The campaign complied with the law.
  

As a result, none of those contributions could possibly be required to be registered with the city council - so (C) is directly supported. Now, there's nothing in the law that prevents you from registering campaign contributions even if you don't have to. So, it's possible that Brimley's campaign went ahead and registered all the contributions, just to be safe. There's nothing in the stimulus that prevents that, and they wouldn't be violating the law if they had. So (E) does not have to be true - it's just a possibility.

Thoughts?

[hazara]

For #25 (Inference/Must be true):

• The law:
  IF contribution is 1) more than $100 and 2) made by a nonresident and 3) made by a non-former-resident
  THEN the contribution must be registered with the city council
  
  The facts:
  Brimley's campaign ONLY has contributions from residents and former residents.
  The campaign complied with the law.
  

As a result, none of those contributions could possibly be required to be registered with the city council - so (C) is directly supported. Now, there's nothing in the law that prevents you from registering campaign contributions even if you don't have to. So, it's possible that Brimley's campaign went ahead and registered all the contributions, just to be safe. There's nothing in the stimulus that prevents that, and they wouldn't be violating the law if they had. So (E) does not have to be true - it's just a possibility.

Thoughts?

thats great thanks.

[Nicolena.]

.