How does Poe suggest the importance of logic in this story? The purloined letter?

The "Purloined Letter" demonstrates that reality can be manipulated through lies and deceit to the extent that "reality" ceases to have a stable meaning. Dupin's dark, smoky library hints at the impenetrable nature of reality.

Explanation:

Whereas Dupin's investigation in "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" established the basic form for a classic whodunit mystery, "The Purloined Letter" takes an entirely different route to highlight Dupin's methods of ratiocination and use of creativity to place himself in the mind of the criminal. The case is clear in that the thief and the details of the crime are perfectly obvious, but what is not clear is how to outwit the thief and return the letter to its rightful owner. The story shows much more of the character of the Prefect, who merely appeared in order to act disgruntled and embarrassed at the end of the first Dupin story. As a result, the narrative includes two characters, the narrator and the Prefect, who serve as obvious foils to Dupin, while the Minister's similarities to Dupin advance the concept of double selves that is prevalent in so many of Poe's stories.

With his energy, obvious emotions, and lack of insight, the Prefect stands in direct opposition to Dupin's calmer, more analytical approach to solving cases. His major fault is that he does not understand that the key to solving a case is to think in a way that successfully approximates the mindset of the criminal; instead, he resorts to trying to find more and more clever ways that he would personally have chosen to hide the letter while chasing answers that are increasingly further away from the correct solution. Whether the case is grisly and bizarre as in "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" or simple and clever as in this instance, Monsieur G. requires the assistance of Dupin because of his consistent inability to imagine the psyches of others. The narrator is less removed from Dupin's point of view and is more inclined to think as Dupin would, but he lacks the perception that allows him to reason out the case himself and becomes a surrogate for the reader. Because the narrator writes in the first person, he takes on the role of conveying and interpreting Dupin's brilliance for the average individual.

make no change because everything else is correct

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.