#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

# PT. 55 S3 Q24

Alum Member
in General 149 karma
This is a necessary assumption question. I correctly identified what is the premise ( aesthic value --> possible for at least two readers to agree on the interpretation) and the conclusion ( objective evaluation of a poem is possible -> popular belief is false). I realized the gap immediately but still had an issue with the correct answer.

I see how the contrapositive of (D) would make it necessary for the conclusion but at first glance I thought it was a possible mistaken reversal. I assumed it would be aesthic value -> objective evaluation. Can someone please explain how to better approach NA questions when they play on conditional logic and a possible rule of thumb. Perhaps a better illustration of the conditional logic chain would help in absolute terms (ex. A -> B -> C etc.) Thanks!
Show Related Discussions

• #### PT 81. S3. Q24I'm confused as to why we ruled out spent fuel rods on the basis that they never contain "significant" quantities of tellurium isotopes? In the first…

• Alum
1749 karma
http://7sage.com/lesson/how-to-find-necessary-assumptions If you have not yet watched this series, give 'em a look.
• Alum
1749 karma
• Alum
1749 karma
You identified the gap perfectly. The thing that JY logically notates is that the "two readers agree" part is the logical equivalent to "popular belief is false". Then indeed connecting the two sufficient conditions would lead to the conclusion (almost like a SA question...almost, which happens now and again in the NA questions). The reason why (D) is correct is because if you negate it, to say "A poem can be evaluated objectively without discussing its aesthetic value" we end up in a logical contradiction.
• Alum Member
149 karma
Thank you nye8879. So basically it wouldn't matter which one came first, aesthic value and obejectviley discussed because we have to link them up regardless?
• Alum
1749 karma
Yeah...because it is only a NA question it is at least necessary that the two ideas are linked, so I suppose it could even have gone logically the other way.