conditional rules

[Negar.j]

Hi there,

I am just wondering where in the books that were given out in the powerscore classes I can find the lesson explaining conditional rules with respect to logic games. In specific I have noticed a trend that I was getting some logic games questions wrong due to my lack of understanding of this concept.

I am on Lesson 5 (5-13 and 14) of the second book and am struggling with Game #3: October 1993 Questions 8-13 AND Game #4: October 1996 Questions 6-12.

In both of these questions while I answered them, I reviewed my work with a youtube video of an instructor explaining the questions in a video and in both videos for these 2 questions the instructor noted "if you got this question wrong you need to review your lesson on when conditional rules trigger and when they are irrelevant".

What can I do to enhance my knowledge on this topic?

Thank you in advance.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Negar.j,

Thanks for your question, and welcome to the Forum!

Conditional reasoning - whether used in a LR stimulus or a logic game - is governed by the same basic principles: you need to be able to distinguish sufficient from necessary conditions, know what the contrapositive is, avoid Mistaken Negations or Reversals, and learn how to connect multiple conditional relationships into a chain order to make additive inferences. These principles are explained in depth in Lesson 2 HW. They are further discussed in Lesson 6, which covers Undefined Grouping Games. Undefined Grouping Games use conditional reasoning to a greater extent than any other type of game on the test.

You may also want to check the following blog posts, which cover some of the more advanced concepts of conditionality in LG:

Conditional Sequencing Rules in LSAT Logic Games

The Most Dangerous Conditional Rule on the LSAT

Conditional Reasoning Redux

Grouping Games, Conditional Linkage and the Double-Not Arrow

Note that all of the games in your Lesson and Homework contain detailed explanations and setup diagrams. Make sure to study them carefully, and ask your instructor if you need help understanding the principles being tested. You are also welcome to post your questions on the Forum.

Hope this helps! Let us know.

Thanks,

[Negar.j]

Hi Nikki,

Thanks for your welcome and response.

As I was reviewing one of the links you kindly provided I notice a discrepancy in http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/the-mos ... -rule-lsat

They provide two examples; the first (if F, no G) which has these outcomes;
1. F occurs, G does not occur
2. G occurs, F does not occur
3. Impossible that Neither F nor G occurs

The first one makes sense!!

And then a second one (If no F, then G) with these outcomes;
1. F occurs, G does not occur
2. G occurs, F does not occur
3. Impossible that Both F and G occur

What confuses me is the very last conclusive paragraph that explains the 3rd scenario of the second example.

The 3rd scenario in the second example says that it's impossible for "Both F and G occur" however the final paragraph explains "the second rule means that one of F and G (and possibly both) is always in" which is confusing because #3 says it is impossible for" Both F and G occur".

What have I misunderstood?


Thanks in advance,

Negar

[David Boyle]

Hi Nikki,

Thanks for your welcome and response.

As I was reviewing one of the links you kindly provided I notice a discrepancy in http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/the-mos ... -rule-lsat

They provide two examples; the first (if F, no G) which has these outcomes;
1. F occurs, G does not occur
2. G occurs, F does not occur
3. Impossible that Neither F nor G occurs

The first one makes sense!!

And then a second one (If no F, then G) with these outcomes;
1. F occurs, G does not occur
2. G occurs, F does not occur
3. Impossible that Both F and G occur

What confuses me is the very last conclusive paragraph that explains the 3rd scenario of the second example.

The 3rd scenario in the second example says that it's impossible for "Both F and G occur" however the final paragraph explains "the second rule means that one of F and G (and possibly both) is always in" which is confusing because #3 says it is impossible for" Both F and G occur".

What have I misunderstood?


Thanks in advance,

Negar

Hello Negar.j,

The article you link says,

"There are three possible outcomes and one impossible outcome:


1. F occurs, G does not occur
2. G occurs, F does not occur
3. Neither F nor G occurs

What is impossible is for both F and G to occur."

, and

"Under this rule, there are also three possible outcomes and one impossible outcome:


1. F occurs, G does not occur
2. G occurs, F does not occur
3. Both F and G occur

What is impossible is for neither F nor G to occur."

So, I think you inserted the word "impossible" a little earlier than Dave Killoran actually inserted it. You may want to reread the article carefully to see exactly where the word "impossible" is!

Hope this helps,
David

[Nikki Siclunov]

Negar.j,

In the second scenario, what is impossible is for neither F nor G to occur. In other words, at least one of them has to occur.

Hope this helps! Let me know.