Conditional Reasoning in LR

[mbenedict]

Hi! I did the conditional reasoning HW section, and I seriously struggled.
When the conditional reasoning appears in LG (when it is straightforward) or when the conditional reasoning is easy to identify, I have not problem diagramming and manipulating the relationship.Basically, once I have the correct diagram for the conditional statement, it is smooth sailing.

However, what I'm struggling with is when the conditional reasoning is convoluted or hard to translate into a diagram (ex. #9 or #4 in 2HW). I can read the passage and understand that there is conditional reasoning present but I struggle to take that knowledge and translate the conditional reasoning into a diagram. I've gone back and read the explanations for the questions I got wrong. For the vast majority of them, I seem too have either over-symbolized or symbolized in a way that wasn't conducive to establishing relationship between various conditional statements.

I was a bit disappointed because when I did the drills for the conditional reasoning, I found it really easy and it was something I was confident about. And its a bit frustrating to know what you need to do to answer the question, and what will help you answer efficiently and correctly, but missing that crucial bit of an established diagram.

So, my question basically is, what can I do to improve this problem? Is there any drills I should look over or practice to get a hang of this? Is there any advice you can share about translating conditional reasoning from the passage to a diagram?

[BethRibet]

Hi Mbenedict,

What a good question! A lot of students struggle with this challenge. While there is no foolproof method to make sense of every different wording or phrasing variation, it helps to always keep in mind the basic concept of a conditional relationship.

The fundamental relationship is such that the sufficient condition, if met, will make the necessary condition certain. In turn, the sufficient condition requires that the necessary condition be true, in order to be possible at all. Often students get comfortable with the common phrasing associated with sufficient and necessary conditions -- such as "if/then" or recognizing that "only" or unless/until/except/without modify necessary conditions. But the testmakers do occasionally formulate conditional sentences without any of these common phrases, in which case you just need to focus on the meaning. Which one requires the other, or guarantees that the other must occur?

If you *do* see common phrases associated with conditional reasoning, try to cut through the jargon and just focus on the structure. For instance, which phrase is modified or described by words such as "only"-- don't over-think the order or phrasing, just zero on the fact that that is a necessary condition, and then identify the sufficient.

Hope this helps a bit. Beyond these basic tips, it just may take substantial practice, till the more convoluted language that appears in some LSAT problems gets less daunting.

Good luck!
Beth