PT 108, Section 3, Question 7

This argument makes a leap from saying that the works we have reference other works to then concluding that they are not the most original ancient works. The author just assumes that if a work references another work, then it can't be the most original.

I've had multiple students say that this is not a gap in the logic, and that if something references other works then it can't be the most original. I would disagree and say that it could in fact be considered an assumption. Think about the book The Davinci Code, for example. A story about a professor of religious iconology and symbology who solves riddles and takes on nefarious organizations across the globe? That idea is very original and creative, despite the fact that the book references dozens of previous works of art, religious text, architecture, mythology, etc. On the other hand, imagine if I wrote a book about a young orphan who found out they were a wizard, had a cool scar, was great at sports on a flying broomstick, and saved the world from a guy whose nose looked like a snake. Even if I didn't explicitly reference other texts in my writing this work would probably not be considered original because Harry Potter was already created.