Q6 - Harry Trevalga: You and your

[WaltGrace1983]

Here is what I thought about this answer:

Trevalga: Submitted 30+ poems in 2 years without publication --> Publication has unfairly discriminated against poems

Publisher: Poetry editor judges all submissions without ever seeing names --> Could not have known it was Trevalga --> Process is fair

What is the assumption of the publisher?
The assumption here could be between the premise and the intermediate conclusion (could not have known it was Trevalga). The glaring issue is here is that, just because the editor cannot see names, why does it follow that the editor does not know Trevalga's work? Perhaps Trevalga uses a very particular writing style about particular subjects and the editor does not publish anything that looks like it could be his work. Either way, this is what I am looking for when going to the answers.

(A) This helps the publisher's argument but it really isn't necessary. Even if the publisher does bear a grudge, this wouldn't matter in theory because the editor supposedly doesn't know if it is the work of Trevalga. I am looking for something more concrete than this that attacks the gap.

(B) This is not really assumed by the publisher at all. However, it is assumed by Trevalga. This is a trick answer for those that misread the question.

(D) Opposite (or at least very close to it). This actually hurts the publisher's argument if we assume this. If we negate it, it helps the argument! Eliminate.

(E) Similar to (A), this might help the publisher's argument yet it is not necessary. So what if he submitted it under his pen name? This still doesn't attack the gap between no name and not knowing.




(C) Perfect! Exactly what I was looking for. If we say the negation, it looks like this: "Trevalga recognizes the poems only if his name is attached to it."

[ohthatpatrick]

Fantastic explanation.

The only tweak I want to make is that (B) is the opposite of what Trevalga is assuming, not what Trevalga is assuming.

Trevalga thinks it IS unusual that he has submitted so many poems without getting any published ... that's why he thinks there is something "special" going on in his case.

(B) does actually sound like the Publisher's point of view, because she might reassure Trevalga that, "Hey, nothing foul is going on. It's totally normal for poets to submit a ton of poems without getting any accepted".

But, even though that sounds like something the publisher might say, nothing in the publisher's argument hinges on whether this state of affairs is usual or unusual, so (B) does not need to be assumed for her argument to work.

[jeanne'sjean]

If we say the negation, it looks like this: "Trevalga recognizes the poems only if his name is attached to it."

Sorry, if I can point out that the negation of C may be : "The editor's recognition of the Trevalga's poems doesn't require T's name attached"?


And I'm still confused by (C). If the Publisher assumes C, then s/he should further assume Trevalga's name is NOT attached to his poems.

Like diagram:

Recognition --> Attachment

~Attachment --> ~Recognition


If there's any mistake in my reasoning?

Thx!

[jessi.j.son]

I think the closest negation would be "The poetry editor can recognize the poems submitted by HT as his without his name attached to them." If this were true, it would make the Publisher's statement questionable as it is possible that the editor may have be biased even without physically seeing the name of the author and thus, the policy would not be so "perfectly fair" as the Publisher claims it to be. So in this case, answer choice B which states that "The poetry editor CANNOT recognize the poems.." would be a necessary assumption.