#22 - One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is,

[Mmjd12]

What does "compatible with the truth or falsity" mean?

That it is neither consistant nor inconsistant with the conclusion?

[Dana D]

Hey Mmjd,

This was a very confusing stimulus and answer choice!

The conclusion here is that being at home is not required for being in one's house. If that conclusion was true, we could read it as is, and the claim " one can be at home without being in one’s house" is compatible with this. You can be 'at home' without being in your house.

If the conclusion is false, we would read it as "being at home is required in order to be in one's house". The claim is still "one can be at home without being in one's house" and this still works, because as the author stated in the first sentence, you can be 'at home' but actually be in your backyard. The claim works whether the conclusion is true or false.

hope that helped!

[izzy_tingles]

Hello, I don't understand the explanations that say the second sentence of the stimulus would be required to establish the conclusion, whereas the first sentence would not be required. To me, the two initial sentences seem like contrapositives of each other. For example, I would diagram the premises as follows:

First sentence: Home not(house)
Second sentence: House not(home)
Conclusion: House not(home)

I also understand the second sentence seems to be diagrammed the same as the conclusion. But, the first sentence seems to be the contrapositive of the conclusion? Can someone explain why these two premises are treated differently? Does it have to do with semantics/wording? And also, can we even assume a sufficient/necessary relationship (as in using arrows) for either of these two premises? Thank you.

[izzy_tingles]

Hello, I have a question for the explanation that Dana D posted above. Would the first claim work whether the conclusion is true or false because the first claim has the sufficient/necessary relationship flipped? As in the truth or falsity of the conclusion never invokes the sufficient condition necessary to trigger the first claim?

This means I would diagram the first claim as: home not(house)
True conclusion: house not(home)
False conclusion: house home

So, the first claim's sufficient condition about "home" is never triggered whether the conclusion is true or false? Thank you.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Izzy,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Nikki's earlier explanation which can be found using the link below.

viewtopic.php?f=611&t=3955

I'd like to start by answering your questions "Does it have to do with semantics/wording? And also, can we even assume a sufficient/necessary relationship (as in using arrows) for either of these two premises?" as these really get to the real issue with understanding this argument.

As you may have suspected based on your questions, these premises are not conditional.

Instead, the first premise is saying:

1. It is possible to be at home and not be in your house.

What this indicates is that "Being at home" does not guarantee that you are "in your house." This is basically saying "being at home" is not sufficient to guarantee "being in your house. "

Of course, it is also possible to be at home and to be in your house. It's just that "being at home" doesn't tell us either way whether you are "in your house."

Here's a different example that may help.

If I say, "It is possible to live in the United States and not live in Texas," that means that "living in the United States" is not sufficient to indicate that one "lives in Texas." However, it is also possible to live in the United States and also to live in Texas. "Living in the United States" just doesn't tell us either way whether someone lives in Texas.

The second premise is saying:

2. It is possible to be in your house and not at home.

What this indicates is that "being in your house" does not guarantee that "you are at home." This is basically saying "being in your house" is not sufficient to guarantee "you are at home. "

These are not contrapositives of each other. Contrapositives are identical in meaning. Here, we have two different albeit related statements regarding what is possible. For example, the statement "It is possible to be hungry but not thirsty" is not the same in meaning as "It is possible to be thirsty but not hungry."

Like the premises, the conclusion is also not stating a conditional relationship. Instead, it is denying one. By stating that "being at home" is not required to "be in one's own house," the conclusion is stating that "being in one's own house" is not sufficient to indicate that "one is at home." This inference directly follows from the second premise (as discussed above) since the second premise shows that it's possible to be in your house and not at home. The first premise is not directly relevant to the conclusion and is compatible with the conclusion being false or true, as described in Answer C.

[RickyLW]

Hello! Can someone please explain why answer choice D is incorrect? I understand why C is the correct answer but had trouble eliminating D. Thank you.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Ricky,

Answer D states: The claim points out an ambiguity in the phrase "at home."

The problem with this answer is that there is no ambiguity in the phrase "at home" in the claim cited in the question. Ambiguity would involve two different meanings of the phrase "at home."

In this argument, "at home" means being at one's place of residence, which includes the building (house) and the surrounding land. This is likely what most people typically think of by the phrase "at home." For example, if someone is in their backyard, they would probably consider themselves as at home, as opposed to "out." The fact that this is not identical in meaning to "being inside one's house," doesn't make this ambiguous.

[zebrowski]

As you may have suspected based on your questions, these premises are not conditional.

Why not? Isn't it much more perspicuous to think about them as conditionals?

I take it that "one can be at home without being in one's house" (claim) means denying that Home House (denying that being in one's house is necessary for being at home).

And I take it that "being at home is not required for one's being in one's own house" (conclusion) means denying that House Home (denying being at home is necessary for being in one's house).

So we deny both of these statements.

Claim: "Home does not require House" - denial of "Home House"

Conclusion: "House does not require Home" - denial of "House Home"

In other words, Home is not necessary for House and House is not necessary for Home.

Now if the Conclusion is true and House does not require Home, the claim that Home does not require House stands.

And even if the Conclusion was false and House did require Home (House Home), the claim that Home does not require House would stand.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi zebrowski,

You are correct that the premises are denying the existence of a conditional relationship. However, denying a conditional relationship is not itself a conditional statement.

For example, the post to which I was replying in my earlier comment had diagrammed the first premise as:

home not(house)

In our diagramming, this would represent a conditional statement meaning:

If home, then not house.

That would be a conditional statement in which "home" is sufficient to guarantee "not house." However, this is not the correct interpretation of the first premise. Being "at home" does not guarantee anything here. This is what I meant by the premises are not actually conditional. They are denying a conditional relationship between these terms.

Conditional reasoning usually appears on the LSAT in its normal/positive form (i.e. if A, then B), which students generally understand and can diagram. Statements denying conditional relationships are less common and often more difficult for students to understand what exactly the relationship is between the terms (and whether or not these can be diagrammed.)

[zebrowski]

Thanks Jeff! I was just revising this question.