Logic question that involves all three logic types.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Lathlee,

You have the basic idea down here I would encourage you to continue thinking about the way these statements work, especially in larger contexts when possible. In this case, statements that involve "never" will always create conditional relationships, so it should be no surprise to you that it occurred here. The better question is: why does it work that way?

It happens that way because absolutes always result in conditionals, and "never" is simply a negative absolute. So, any time you see "never," there is a conditional present. The question that follows that is: is it always important for the LSAT? The answer to that is No. Consider the following statements:

• 1. Lions and gazelles are never in the same group.
  
  2. Companies that wish maintain goodwill never risk offending a customer.
  
  3. There are some people in this class who have never eaten ice cream.
  
  Diagrams below

Each statement contains a conditional relationship, but you can see that the third statement is much "softer" and trickier than the first two. It's less definite because I modified the "never" statement to only apply to "some" members of the class. Could it figure in the answer? Yes, it could. But there's also a high chance it won't. In statements 1 and 3, those are more likely to play a role in a correct answer.

• Diagrams
  
  1. Lions and gazelles are never in the same group.
  
  • The individual sub-diagrams are:
    
    L G
    G L
    
    and those two combine to create a double-not arrow:
    
    L G
  
  2. Companies that wish maintain goodwill never risk offending a customer.
  
  • CWMG ROC
  
  3. There are some people in this class who have never eaten ice cream.
  
  • There are various ways to represent this, and the most common one would use Formal Logic and hinge on the "some:"
    
    People in Class Eaten Ice Cream
    
    But of course I said it contained a conditional, and so I want to show you how that could appear:
    
    People in ClassSome Eaten Ice Cream
  And this second representation is why I stress making an analysis that uses the context at hand, because in this problem I generally prefer the first diagram to the second. But the second diagram is accurate, and shows that we can even use "some" in a conditional statement!

So, "never" will always result in a conditional of some sort, but from there you have to make an analysis that helps you decide whether it will play a role in solving the problem.

Thanks!

[lathlee]

Dear Dave,

So I am just making sure.... One of the main point of the last reply was to hint me that I do not need to worry the presence of the term, Never, in Logical reasoning in regards to conditional reasoning. May I ask why? The reason I am asking this, I am not attacking or doubting your advice just bit puzzled. After you advise not to worry about the role of Never in logical reasoning, then you kindly explained to me if I ever see a Never in logical reasoning related to conditional reasoning, you kindly drew and explained in length how to prepare.

I am assuming you went this extra layer of trouble because you are a kind person and wants to give your very best for your students so they can perform their best; therefore, students can be prepared just in case of unlikelihood scenario. Is that why or Am I not getting the message that you want me to get correctly ?

Thank you for the consideration,

[lathlee]

Actually, Never Mind about my prior message; i read the prior message in small screen first setting but now i see the message in printed version, i can see i understand you in partially incorrect way.

Thank you, Dave, for showing me the modifier, never , can be conditionally represented depends on the circumstances. Anyways. i Still want to leave that message to show you are a kind person if it is okay.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, lathlee,

Excellent. I am pleased that Dave's post was helpful. As he demonstrated, "absolute" terms such as "never," "always," "only," etc. often generate conditionals. As a student, it is up to you to engage with the statements on the test. When you suspect that there may be a conditional relationship, you should ascertain whether a necessary-sufficient relationship is present.

1. Is there something that is required for something else to happen or be true?
2. Is there something that guarantees that something else will happen or be true?

To use one of Dave's examples:

1. Lions and gazelles are never in the same group.

The individual sub-diagrams are:

L G
G L

and those two combine to create a double-not arrow:

L G

1. Is there something that is required for something else to happen or be true? For Lions to be in the group, Gazelles must be omitted. For Gazelles to be in the group, Lions must be omitted.
2. Is there something that guarantees that something else will happen or be true? If Lions are in the group, Gazelles are out. If Gazelles are in the group, Lions are out.

You can analyze all sorts of statements with this logic. There are shortcuts, pointers, and rules to follow, and through practice you should endeavor to engage with the stimuli to recognize and analyze conditional statements correctly.

Keep up the good work!

[lathlee]

I am terribly sorry to ask this question; I keep asking similar questions. But I really want to have no flaws in my logical reasoning. therefore I ask:

Actually, it is interesting you, Jonathan, you point this out and I was just about to ask this point in the forum.

Isn't modifier, Always, and Modifier, ever, work exactly same as Only especially the modifier, Always, in conditional relationship reasoning expression . As far as I know, 2016 Lsat Logical reasoning version both of Formal Logic and Conditional reasoning, I never saw Always as the necessary condition modifier which I started to thinking after I posted about the modifier, Never:
I understand always can be modifier of 100%, All. in Formal Logical terms.

But let's say a question is about conditional relationship in logical reasoning:

I am always the winner in the game of 1 on 1 basketball works same as If I play 1 on 1 basketball game play, then I win.

Also, Let's say in a conditional reasoning relationship logical reasoning question "In a game of Tennis, I am ever the winner." Since I asked about the modifier Never, I just became naturally curious of the modifier, Ever.

In this context, is it effective and worthwhile to represent the relationship as "Game of tennis i am the Winner"

I am sorry my worrying is excessive and making you guys working extra. but I really want to be as perfectly prepared as I can be for this upcoming September LSAT. (Which I already am registered as Dave recommended me to book a spot early as possible for September)

Thx again

[lathlee]

Hi, can u possibly answer this question whne one f u guys have some time. Haha thx

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Lathlee,

I think that Jonathon gave a wonderful answer above.

Is there something that is required for something else to happen or be true?
Is there something that guarantees that something else will happen or be true?

The hypothetical you provided tells us that if we find a game of tennis taking place, then we know that lathlee is the winner. In other words, knowing that a game of tennis occurs guarantees that lathlee is the winner, so it can make sense to diagram the relationship as you did.

[lathlee]

Hi. Thank you so much for the reply.

just making sure. did I got this relaitonship correctly? : "I am always the winner in the game of 1 on 1 basketball works same as If I play 1 on 1 basketball game play, then I win. "

The reason I insist on the answer is that I started to think the modifer, Always, Can be also necessary condition which confuses me cuz I was being taught by you guys that it is definitely a Formal Logic indicator of ALL. I just don't want to draw formal logic relationship instead of conditional relationship when a question was asking about conditional relationship nature.

[Kristina Moen]

just making sure. did I got this relaitonship correctly? : "I am always the winner in the game of 1 on 1 basketball works same as If I play 1 on 1 basketball game play, then I win. "

Yes, I you got it!

Like Jonathan and Francis said, you can think of it this way:
Is there something that is required for something else to happen or be true? That's your necessary condition, or the part that goes on the right side of the diagram.
Is there something that guarantees that something else will happen or be true? That's your sufficient condition, or the part that goes on the left side of the diagram.

You're doing great!

[lathlee]

Hi.

Isnt the phrase, other than, works exactly same as except thus added on to unless equation?