Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q2 The poet E. E. Cummings

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The poet E. E. Cummings stood for the individual human being against regimentation and standardization of any sort.

Conclusion

In standing against regimentation and standardization of any sort, Cummings stood against something essential to the work he did (standing for the individual human being).

Evidence (since / and)

Metaphor presupposes literal language, and literal language essentially involves regimentation.

Evaluate

Excuse me, waiter? Hi, I believe there's a mistake. I ordered a question 2, but this seems way too hard to read for the 2nd question in an LR section.

Okay, when we're confused we can lean on structural clues. We have to find out Conclusion, and "since" and "and" instruct our eyes that the final two claims are supporting ideas.

The conclusion has a pronoun part of it, "in doing so", so we need to import language from the first sentence in order to grasp the full claim that the Conclusion is making.

When we're confused on Sufficient Assumption, we can lean on a trick I call "Mentioned twice? That'll suffice." The basic idea is that ideas that are mentioned twice (literal language, regimentation, stood against) are pretty much taken care of, in terms of the internal logic of an argument.

Consider this "argument": If A then B. Thus, if A then D, since B presupposes C.

Without thinking too hard, we can guess that the missing link is between C and D, since they are only mentioned once, whereas A and B are each mentioned twice.

So in this Cummings argument, the stuff only mentioned once is "essential to the work he did" and "metaphor".

To actually understand and predict that link, we should first take advantage of the mini-chain of ideas the Premises are giving us in the final two claims.

Metaphor presupposes literal language. Literal language involves regimentation. Metaphor → literal language → regimentation

If you're against regimentation, as they say Cummings was, then by contrapositive, you would be against literal language and against metaphor.

The author is saying,

Goal

Thus, we want something like "metaphor was essential to the work Cummings did".

2.

The argument's conclusion can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Not all poets use metaphor.

    Unrelated to Goal Weak Language

    There will almost never be correct answers on Sufficient Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox that use "at least one" language like could, may, might, some, sometimes, not all, need not, not necessarily. The conclusion is that Cummings stood against something essential to the work he did. What was essential to the work he did? The evidence never defined that, so the correct answer must.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    Metaphor was essential to E.

    Why this is right

    This is what we predicted. If metaphor was essential to Cumming's work and Cummings stood against metaphor, then we would prove the conclusion that Cummings stood against something essential to his work. Do we know that Cummings stood against metaphor? Yes, indirectly, since metaphor presupposes regimentation, and Cummings stood against regimentation.

    Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    86% picked this

  3. There can be no literal

    Unrelated to Goal

    The conclusion is that Cummings stood against something essential to the work he did. What was essential to the work he did? The evidence never defined that, so the correct answer must.

    9% picked this

  4. Poetry cannot be regimented or

    Unrelated to Goal

    The conclusion is that Cummings stood against something essential to the work he did. What was essential to the work he did? The evidence never defined that, so the correct answer must.

    2% picked this

  5. E. E. Cummings did not

    Opposite of Goal

    We were looking to hear that Cummings used metaphor (or literal language, which is implied by using metaphor) in his work.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free