Log in Joann Pham 4 years agoPosted 4 years ago. Direct link to Joann Pham's post “The reasoning in Question...” The reasoning in Question 2, Answer A doesn't make sense to me. I eliminated this answer because it contained the necessary condition signal "only if." Am I missing something about A that makes the conditional rules sufficient instead? And let's say they use the word "if" in place of "only if." I still don't understand the reasoning, since the turn out (I use Y) is the goal, and following the recipe (S1) as well as using high-quality ingredients (S2) follow the same pattern as answer C and the original passage. The goal (Y) is met, and one of the sufficient conditions (S1) is said to be true. Therefore the other sufficient condition (S2) must also be true. There appear to be two sufficient conditions. • (17 votes) Torvald Fisk 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to Torvald Fisk's post “I'm wrestling with this, ...” I'm wrestling with this, too, but I think I've got it. In the prompt, we have an outcome--the book tour being successful--and two conditions which we're told are enough to guarantee that the outcome will occur. If the tour is well-publicized and the author is an established writer, we are told that for sure the tour will be successful. Okay, but there could be other ways of achieving a successful book tour, too. Nothing in the formula says that you have to be a well-established author or that you have to publicize the tour in order to have success. Maybe a bunch of people just happened to be at the book tour locations for completely unrelated reasons, and this caused the book tour to be successful. The two conditions are sufficient to guarantee a successful book tour, but they aren't necessary to any successful book tour. Answer A, on the other hand, introduces an outcome--the recipe turning out--which happens "only if" two other conditions are met. This means that there isn't another way for the condition to be met without fulfilling both of these conditions. You have to follow the recipe exactly and you have to use high-quality ingredients. The wording allows for no exceptions. The prompt under answer A after you push "check" was a little confusing to me at first. It says that we can eliminate it "because the passage’s evidence contains two sufficient conditions (X and Y), whereas this choice contains only one (X)." In other words, we can eliminate choice A because while the passage (ie the original prompt) contains two sufficient conditions answer A only includes one. The outcome in choice A--the recipe turning out--actually is a sufficient condition. It functions the same way. If the recipe turns out, it's sufficient for us to determine that the two necessary conditions must have been met. Does that make sense? (28 votes) Edgar Olvera 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to Edgar Olvera's post “If the explanation in Exa...” If the explanation in Example 2, Answer A is confusing, it's super helpful to read the next article: The Logic of "If" vs. "Only if" • (14 votes) Dom Rodriguez 5 years agoPosted 5 years ago. Direct link to Dom Rodriguez's post “I am having trouble knowi...” I am having trouble knowing when to group variables together. For example, in example 2, answer choice D, "suffer from dry rot and poor drainage" is one variable (X), whereas in answer choice C, "kept in the shade and watered more than twice weekly" is considered two variables (X and Y). How can I figure out that there is more than one variable present and not two parts to one variable? Thanks! • (2 votes) Scott Chrisman 4 years agoPosted 4 years ago. Direct link to Scott Chrisman's post “I would say it's in the w...” I would say it's in the wording. "suffer from dry rot and poor drainage" is one thing, because the house SUFFERS. The fact that is suffers from two things isn't relevant, only that it suffers. "kept in the shade and watered more than twice weekly" is two things. It is kept in the shade, and it is watered. Two things occurred, whereas in the first example, one thing occurred (suffering). The fact that the suffering was comprised of two parts is what's confusing you, but the suffering is what happened, not the dry rot and poor drainage. (8 votes) Brittany Pierce 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to Brittany Pierce's post “Also, aside from the 3 ar...” Also, aside from the 3 articles listed here under the lessons, where can I find more information/instruction on necessary vs. sufficient conditions in general? The article is a good start, but I need something more in depth. • (3 votes) Brittany Pierce 3 years agoPosted 3 years ago. Direct link to Brittany Pierce's post “To me, choice A and C in ...” To me, choice A and C in question 2 seem the same... I don't understand why C is correct but A isn't. Can someone explain this to me in a little more detail please? • (3 votes) Shakespeare575 4 years agoPosted 4 years ago. Direct link to Shakespeare575's post “Some of the signal words ...” Some of the signal words for sufficient/necessary conditions are confusing to me. Specifically: Signal of Sufficiency: Signal of Necessity: Could someone please explain how these are derived or how they make sense? In the sufficient condition statement "If Lola's ball goes into the net, Lola loses a point" for instance...wouldn't this be translated to "Lola loses a point if Lola's ball goes into the net" (which per the signal words above would mean S = Lola loses a point?) Please let me know if I need to clarify - hopefully this makes sense! • (2 votes) Bonnie Lewis 4 years agoPosted 4 years ago. Direct link to Bonnie Lewis's post “Original Q.: X (well publ...” Original Q.: X (well publicized) and Y (established writer) right arrow→right arrow Z (successful book tour) A: This choice has the same structure: THE CONCLUSION IS DIFFERENT (Even though same structure?) Okay. I get it. Even though the conditions were (X,Y, Z) were rearranged in the conclusions of both, they still have the same structure. Okay. • (2 votes) Heleno Rodrigues Rego_20220075089 7 months agoPosted 7 months ago. Direct link to Heleno Rodrigues Rego_20220075089's post “In the "Necessity and suf...” In the "Necessity and sufficiency in the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT. Mistake 1" section, what does the author mean by "evidence"? • (1 vote) Emine Aslan 2 years agoPosted 2 years ago. Direct link to Emine Aslan's post “What would be the correct...” What would be the correct conclusion for the argument in Example 1 if it weren't flawed? • (1 vote) thezenrenegade 5 months agoPosted 5 months ago. Direct link to thezenrenegade's post “Is there a mistake in the...” Is there a mistake in the "Signal words for sufficient conditions" tip? The last example reads: "In order for S to happen, Y must happen (or Y must happen in order for S to happen)." Where "S" is the sufficient condition. It should say "In order for Y to happen, S must happen." The author got Y and S mixed up. Second, this is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. So it belongs in the other category and needs to say "N must happen in order for Y to happen." Thanks for reviewing. Great article! • (1 vote)Want to join the conversation?
Dom
"In order for S to happen, Y must happen"
"In order for Y, N must happen"
Julia = Y and Z, therefore X must be true.
X (kept in shade) and Y (watered more than twice weekly) right arrow→right arrow Z (die)
This cactus was X and Z, so Y must be true.
