Top Law Schools

.

Where exactly are you stuck on it? People can be a lot more helpful if you lay out what parts you feel like you *do* understand, and then where it falls apart.

The first step on assumption questions is always to identify and distill the argument core:

• PREMISE: Great poem author never intend contradictory ideas
  Some readers believe great poems have contradictory ideas
  CONCLUSION: What great poem authors intend =/= the meaning

First, notice that the new term in the conclusion is "the meaning". We've talked about what authors intend and what readers believe, but never have we discussed "the meaning", as in the actual meaning, until the conclusion.

Looking at the two premises, what should be apparent is that what the author intends =/= what readers sometimes believe, since the readers sometimes believe "contradictory ideas", while the authors never intend "contradictory ideas". So, we might tweak our understanding of the argument core to look like this:

• PREMISE: What great poem author intends =/= what some readers believe
  CONCLUSION: What great poem author intends =/= the meaning

Now the disconnect between the premise and the conclusion is clear - in order to bridge the gap, we need to know that what these readers believe is ACTUALLY "the meaning". (E) follows the classic format of "If [premise], then [conclusion]" by giving us exactly these ideas: If [reader believes], then [the meaning].

What do you think?