LGB Conditional Reasoning flashcards

[Lina]

LGB Conditional Reasoning flashcards have been extremely helpful! Can you help me understand card 127 a little better?

Is the answer saying that the conditional relationship can be diagrammed necessary-->sufficient, depending on which events occur first?

My interpretation of the CR in this example causes me to diagram it differently. I read it as: if we recieve more supplies (sufficient), we must win this battle (necessary). Am I misnterrepting "we can only" as necessary, when it should be Only if we recieve more supplies (sufficient), we can win this battle (necessary)?

If so, please let me know how to avoid misinterpreting for sentences worded this way.

Thanks!

[Lina]

Sure thing! It is True or false? If there is a conditional relationship between two events, the sufficient event is always understood to take place before the necessary event.

False, there is no implied temporal relationship between a sufficient and necessary event. For example, "We can only win this battle if we receive more supplies" would be diagrammed as: Win---> Supplies, even though the victory would clearly take place AFTER the receipt of more supplies).

[Steve Stein]

LGB Conditional Reasoning flashcards have been extremely helpful! Can you help me understand card 127 a little better?

Is the answer saying that the conditional relationship can be diagrammed necessary-->sufficient, depending on which events occur first?

My interpretation of the CR in this example causes me to diagram it differently. I read it as: if we recieve more supplies (sufficient), we must win this battle (necessary). Am I misnterrepting "we can only" as necessary, when it should be Only if we recieve more supplies (sufficient), we can win this battle (necessary)?

If so, please let me know how to avoid misinterpreting for sentences worded this way.

Thanks!

Hi Lina,

Thanks for your kind words about the flash cards, and for your question. The point of that card is that neither the sufficient nor the necessary condition has to come first.

For the example of the battle, "We can only win this battle if we receive more supplies."

So, what is necessary to win the battle? more supplies--that is the necessary condition.

Win battle more supplies

(On the other side, winning the battle would be sufficient to tell us that we had indeed received more supplies--before the battle, as you point out).

We also know that since more supplies are necessary, without them we don't have a chance; that's the contrapositive:

NO more supplies NO win battle

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[akanshalsat]

Hello, though I don't have the flashcards, I stumbled upon this question in the forum and am really confused because it seems like your explanation is a contradiction of everything that is explaing about conditionality in the powerscore books.

We are told that whenever "Only" is given before a term, we know that it indicates that there is a necessary condition present, which would be the "winning" since it states, "we can ONLY win" and "IF" indicates a sufficient condition, "IF we have the supplies". Even though the sentence puts the IF in the second part, we are still taught that what follows is "sufficient" since it is a sufficient clause indicator. Why, then, is the conditionality statement presented differently in the above explanation? I just feel that with this example, all of my previous studying is in a loop and I don't know which rules to follow. Sorry if there's any confusion on my part!

[Shannon Parker]

Hello, though I don't have the flashcards, I stumbled upon this question in the forum and am really confused because it seems like your explanation is a contradiction of everything that is explaing about conditionality in the powerscore books.

We are told that whenever "Only" is given before a term, we know that it indicates that there is a necessary condition present, which would be the "winning" since it states, "we can ONLY win" and "IF" indicates a sufficient condition, "IF we have the supplies". Even though the sentence puts the IF in the second part, we are still taught that what follows is "sufficient" since it is a sufficient clause indicator. Why, then, is the conditionality statement presented differently in the above explanation? I just feel that with this example, all of my previous studying is in a loop and I don't know which rules to follow. Sorry if there's any confusion on my part!

Hey there,

This is a fairly common issue. It is true that "If" is traditionally presented as the sufficient condition, and is therefore listed as an indicator word for sufficient conditions. This is true in the typical "if/then" scenario. For instance, if Jane got an A, then she studied for the test. Jane getting an A is the sufficient condition, and Jane studying for the test is the necessary condition. A--->Study

However, this problem is an example of how we cannot always rely on indicators. Sometimes labels go out the window. The important thing is to pay attention to the function of each of the clauses. Since the statement on this flaschcard is saying that "we can only win if we have the supplies," we know that it is telling us that "If we win, then have the supplies." In this instance having the supplies becomes the necessary condition, and winning becomes the sufficient condition. Winning-->Supplies

I hope this clears it up some.