#13 - Lindsey: There are, of course, many poets with

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[ali124]

Hi!
Could you help explain why (E) is the answer not (D)? I was going between the two and chose (D) because I saw the argument part as directly clarifying the conclusion that "many poets are made melancholy by writing poetry."

What is the difference between the meaning of (D) and (E)?
Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Ali!

I think the confusion here might have to do with what exactly is meant by clarifying a claim. When you clarify a claim, you aren't adding to it. You are essentially just describing it in different words or specifying it further. In this case, Lindsey's conclusion is that writing poetry causes poets to be melancholy. Why does she think this? Because most poets she has met are melancholy and because writing poetry can be depressing. So the statement that writing poetry can be depressing does not clarify the conclusion. Instead, it is a premise that supports the conclusion that writing poetry makes poets melancholy (rather than the other way around, that being melancholy makes someone write poetry).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Tajadas]

I got E right, but A and B seemed like weird answers to me. Is it ever possible that a premise provides evidence for another premise? I thought premises are supposed to stand independently, and so if a premise provides evidence for something else, then that "something else" must be a conclusion or intermediate conclusion.

[LSAT2HARD]

When I read the first two sentences, I realized that there is a gap between the premise and the conclusion. The author can only conclude that many poets are also melancholy, but saying their melancholy is caused by writing poetry requires further assumption which is what the third sentence basically saying. That is why I chose D because I thought adding an assumption is clarifying. Now I get it, clarifying is not adding new information.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Tajadas and LSAT2HARD,

First, Tajadas, remember that an intermediate conclusion is a type of premise. It's also a type of conclusion. It's a statement that serves both roles in one. It would be a great example of a premise that is supported by another premise. Answer choices (A) and (B) are both describing an argument with the structure premise(s), intermediate conclusion (which is both the premise and conclusion), and main conclusion. That's not the structure we have here.

And exactly right LSAT2HARD. If something is clarifying, it's not actually providing new information. You are right that this isn't the most flawless argument, but your job here is not to analyze the strength or weakness of the argument. It's to identify the structure of the argument.

Hope that helps!

[sarah_tucker@alumni.brown.edu]

Hi!
I am still having trouble with this question. I chose A because I read "As everyone knows, an activity as profound and engrossing as writing poetry can be depressing" as a premise in support or an intermediate conclusion "those I have met have much more often been disposed to melancholy."

I did not read each sentence as a separate premise in support of the conclusion, but rather a series that built on itself. Any advice on how to avoid that mistake, or more info on how to read the stimulus accurately?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Try breaking out just those two lines from the rest of the stimulus, Sarah, and see if they make sense as an argument. That looks like this:

Writing poetry can be depressing, therefore, the poets I have met are melancholy.

Is this what the author intends to convey? The first claim really does nothing to support the second one, does it? The author isn't trying to prove that the poets they have met are melancholy, but is just stating it as a fact that needs no support. Same with the claim about writing poetry - it's just a fact, everyone knows it (at least, according to this author).

When you pull those claims out from the rest of the stimulus and examine their relationship, you can see that they are not forming an argument, as neither statement is being used as evidence to support the other. Thus, an answer like A or B is just a distraction, because they do not describe what actually occurred in the argument.