Conditional Reasoning

[pacer]

I notices that "no" is not on the list of sufficient indicator words. Is it a sufficient indicator since it implies all?

for example,

if I state No doctors are engineers

I am really saying that all doctors are not engineers

which can also be stated as if doctor, then not engineer


I am a bit confused and not sure if the reasoning I have made is correct and if the statements made above are truly equivalent in meaning when it comes to conditional reasoning

Can you please go over this with some more explanations or point out if I am on the right track? Can I include "No" in my list of sufficient indicator words?

Thanks,

Pacer

[David Boyle]

I notices that "no" is not on the list of sufficient indicator words. Is it a sufficient indicator since it implies all?

for example,

if I state No doctors are engineers

I am really saying that all doctors are not engineers

which can also be stated as if doctor, then not engineer


I am a bit confused and not sure if the reasoning I have made is correct and if the statements made above are truly equivalent in meaning when it comes to conditional reasoning

Can you please go over this with some more explanations or point out if I am on the right track? Can I include "No" in my list of sufficient indicator words?

Thanks,

Pacer

Hello pacer,

It can be an indicator word for...Cannot Be True. E.g., "all" would be a sufficient indicator in the phrase "All doctors are wealthy". Doctors wealthy. But if it were "No doctors are wealthy", then it would be doctors slash wealthy. So, if you consider "no" or "none" to be a sort of "sufficient indicator", it would only be for creating a negative sufficient condition. Does that make sense?

Thanks and I hope this helps,
David

[pacer]

On a similar topic, can the following words be considered as conditional indicators?

Are these words the same as "If" (sufficient indicators)?

Since
Because
Suppose

For example,

If A, then B. A B
Therefore, since B, it must be A. (this is flawed mistaken reversal) B A

Here since is equivalent to if.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Pacer,

Talking about conditional indicators is always interesting to me, but it's also dangerous to over-analyze this area, in part because after a while, everything begins to look like a conditional indicator

The words "no" and none" are well-known to work well with conditional reasoning (see any of the drills we've written, for example—they are littered with No and None). They are also negatives that typically transfer over to the necessary condition. Are they indicators per se, or simply negatives along for the ride? It could be either, both, or neither, depending on the situation. This is true for a lot of words, and so it's context that tells you what's going on.

With words like Since and Because, I tend to think of them instead as premise indicators (and let's avoid the abstract validity discussion of conditionality relationships between premises and conclusions, for now). In your example, "Since" doesn't stand alone; it is added to a pre-existing premise, and it is the combination of those two that results in the conclusion. In other words, those aren't two wholly separate statements of A B and
B A, but two joined statements (attempting to) produce a conclusion:

• Premise 1: If A, then B (A B)
  
  Premise B: since B (B)
  
  Conclusion: Therefore...it must be A (A) meaning that the author thought B A

It is a Mistaken Reversal, which is of course concluding that A occurs on the basis that
A B and that B occurred.

The tough thing is that Since is clearly involved in helping the conditionality come together, it's confusing. The danger area here is starting to look at words like Since and Because and thinking that every time you are going to see conditionality, because that's not the case at all. This is true of so many words that you can't approach it in a formulaic way—you have to use context to determine what's going on. "No" is a great example: it can certainly be used to introduce a conditional idea, but at the same time there are many uses on the LSAT where it has nothing to do with conditionality at all. That's why you don't see it on the indicator list

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!