PT76.S2.Q24 - it has been said that authors who write

cacrv567

lawlz so this question is a monster, but watching JY's explanation helped.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-24/
He explains that the larger argument pattern is:
A --> absurd
not(absurd)
-------------
not (A)

This really helped clarify what I was seeing here. BUT what I can't really fully understand is why we even need to further connect A-->absurd. Isn't A--->absurd already spelled out to us as a premise? Shouldn't we just accept that is what we're given and prove that the necessary assumption is not(absurd)? I understand how "popular" connects "intending pleasure" to "sales figures" but am failing to understand this on a larger level, I think.

w00t for last minute fine tuning with monster questions!
thanks in advance for any clarification here!

blah170blah

Actually, most of the stuff in the stimulus is noise. The main elision is that if something has an effect ("gave pleasure" in conclusion), it was intended to ("in order to give pleasure" from the premise).