Q7 - essayist

[ericha3535]

could someone break this down for me

[sumukh09]

This is a sufficient assumption question so we're looking for an answer choice that completely fills in the gap that leads to the conclusion. Moreover, the correct answer choice will guarantee the stated conclusion.

The conclusion is that the claim that literature must represent events or actions occurring in sequence must be rejected. Why? Because if poems are regarded as legitimate and consist solely of amalgams of disparate images, then the claim about literature must be rejected. One of the premises is that literature requires a representation of events or actions occurring in sequence.

Let's take a look at the answer choices:

A) says that an amalgam of disparate images cannot represent a sequence of events or actions

Let's plug A) into the stim as a premise in addition to the premise that provides direct support for the conclusion

We get:

if one regards as legitimate the imagists' poems, which consist solely of amalgams of disparate images then the claim about literature must be rejected + An amalgam of disparate images cannot represent a sequence of events or actions

Therefore:

Claim about literature must be rejected. "Claim" is borrowed language because it refers to something mentioned earlier in the stim; specifically that literature must represent events or actions occurring in sequence.

The argument is airtight now because the two premises work together to solidify the truth of the conclusion.

Wrong A/C

B) The appropriateness is irrelevant; also this answer choice talks about something we're not concerned with in the conclusion - namely poems

C) Lessings awareness is irrelevant

D) "some subject matter" is ambiguous and does not necessarily have to imply events or actions occurring in sequence. If it specifically said "events or actions occurring in sequence" then I would think this answer choice would be correct.

E) Again, simultaneous is not the same thing as occurring in sequence so it is wrong

[jaf51200]

Can someone please explain this question and break down the argument? I still don't clearly see the gap in the argument and how choice A completely fills it in.

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

I'll give it a shot. Make sure you understand the process/goal of a Sufficient Assumption question.

We have to pick an answer that, when combined with the premises, will PROVE the conclusion.

Say I was trying to prove the conclusion that "Paul is wealthy."

Would this answer choice work?
(A) Paul's net worth is a trillion dollars.

It would not!

(A) could definitely be the correct answer on a Strengthen question, but telling me Paul's net worth is a trillion bucks doesn't logically prove Paul is wealthy.

To do so, I'd need an additional premise such as "if you're net worth is a trillion dollar, you're wealthy".

The actual wording "wealthy" in the conclusion must be defined and we must know that Paul meets that definition.

If I'm trying to prove that "Paul is wealthy", and we've never defined "wealthy", then any answer choice without the term "wealthy" in it will fail to do the job of proving the conclusion and could be eliminated.

So all Sufficient Assumption questions start from the Conclusion. You need to figure out what terms/ideas need to be defined.
========

Our conclusion in Q7:
If you regard imagists' poems as legitimate, the claim about literature must be rejected.

That's not good enough. What was the claim? What does it mean to reject it?

The claim about literature:
Literature must represent events or actions occurring in sequence

What does it mean to reject (negate) that claim?
Literature does NOT have to represent events or actions occurring in sequence

Time to say the conclusion again with the full details spelled out:
If you regard the imagists' poems as legitimate, then literature does not have to represent events or actions occurring in sequences.

What do we mean by "legitimate"? We just mean "legitimately literature"; it qualifies as literature.

The conclusion is essentially saying that "imagist poems provide an example of literature in which you do NOT represent events or actions occurring in sequences."

So our goal is to prove that.

What do we know about imagist poems?

We know that they "consist solely of amalgams of disparate images".

So the argument is trying to say that
IF "you consist solely of amalgams of disparate images"
THEN "you do NOT represent events/actions occuring in sequence"

That's what (A) says.

Once again in somewhat different terms, the conclusion is saying
"If you accept imagist poems as legit literature, then the previous rule we heard about literature must be rejected".

If you replace each of those ideas with what we know about imagist poems and what we know about the rule about literature you get,
"If you accept amalgams of disparate images as legit literature, then literature does not HAVE to represent events or actions occurring in sequence."

Hope this helps

[jaf51200]

It does. Thank you so much for the detailed explanation!

[ganbayou]

I'll give it a shot. Make sure you understand the process/goal of a Sufficient Assumption question.

We have to pick an answer that, when combined with the premises, will PROVE the conclusion.

Say I was trying to prove the conclusion that "Paul is wealthy."

Would this answer choice work?
(A) Paul's net worth is a trillion dollars.

It would not!

(A) could definitely be the correct answer on a Strengthen question, but telling me Paul's net worth is a trillion bucks doesn't logically prove Paul is wealthy.

To do so, I'd need an additional premise such as "if you're net worth is a trillion dollar, you're wealthy".

The actual wording "wealthy" in the conclusion must be defined and we must know that Paul meets that definition.

If I'm trying to prove that "Paul is wealthy", and we've never defined "wealthy", then any answer choice without the term "wealthy" in it will fail to do the job of proving the conclusion and could be eliminated.

So all Sufficient Assumption questions start from the Conclusion. You need to figure out what terms/ideas need to be defined.
========

Our conclusion in Q7:
If you regard imagists' poems as legitimate, the claim about literature must be rejected.

That's not good enough. What was the claim? What does it mean to reject it?

The claim about literature:
Literature must represent events or actions occurring in sequence

What does it mean to reject (negate) that claim?
Literature does NOT have to represent events or actions occurring in sequence

Time to say the conclusion again with the full details spelled out:
If you regard the imagists' poems as legitimate, then literature does not have to represent events or actions occurring in sequences.

What do we mean by "legitimate"? We just mean "legitimately literature"; it qualifies as literature.

The conclusion is essentially saying that "imagist poems provide an example of literature in which you do NOT represent events or actions occurring in sequences."

So our goal is to prove that.

What do we know about imagist poems?

We know that they "consist solely of amalgams of disparate images".

So the argument is trying to say that
IF "you consist solely of amalgams of disparate images"
THEN "you do NOT represent events/actions occuring in sequence"

That's what (A) says.

Once again in somewhat different terms, the conclusion is saying
"If you accept imagist poems as legit literature, then the previous rule we heard about literature must be rejected".

If you replace each of those ideas with what we know about imagist poems and what we know about the rule about literature you get,
"If you accept amalgams of disparate images as legit literature, then literature does not HAVE to represent events or actions occurring in sequence."

Hope this helps

Hi,

So just want to make sure I understand correctly... the premise for this question is "if one regards as legitimate the imagists' poems, which consist solely of amalgams...images," and the conclusion is "...must be rejected" part?

Thank you

[tommywallach]

Yes.