Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: PT 20, IV, 1  (Read 348 times)

sevinkimpson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
PT 20, IV, 1
« on: June 06, 2008, 01:17:54 AM »
To me, the assumption in D (TCR) doesn't seem to be an assumption, since the stimulus presupposes that, indeed, falling short of highly esteemed values makes for good comedy. From what I understand, even if the author is making an assumption in his logic, that assumption can only be a credited response if it isn't contained in the stimulus (as D seems to me to be). So, explanation?

sevinkimpson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: PT 20, IV, 1
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2008, 07:00:49 PM »
Bump. Anyone?

valjean

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: PT 20, IV, 1
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2008, 07:35:44 PM »
I took the premise you're talking about to mean that when people (the audience) fail to live up to standards they hold in high esteem, then the comedy exaggerating that failing is successful.

The argument stipulates that the comedians are disrespectful (fail to live up to the value of respect) but implicitly assumes that the audience sometimes does so as well. If the audience value respect and never fail to act respectfully, comedy exaggerating their failings (which don't exist) would be unsuccessful.

Does that help? I find it really hard to explain my thought process on these LR questions.
Not applying until next cycle...

sevinkimpson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: PT 20, IV, 1
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2008, 08:17:28 PM »
Yeah... that's a little clearer. So when the stimulus says that "when people fail to live up to that which they esteem", that's not already assuming that that happens? I guess that's where I made a false assumption (assuming that the text had already given the premise that the credited response stated). Thanks for the help.