How come To Be is not listed as a sufficient Indicator

[Dave Killoran]

Hi. I am just making sure. If there is a statement like in LSAT question,

Water is made of H2O.

the conditional nature might invovle significantly in the question stem's premises and conclusion dynamics,

but this can turn out to be conditional relationship

as If Water there are two hydrogen and one Oxgen atoms exist

Yes, that can be shown as conditional. Any time something is, must be, or has a certain characteristic, then it's conditional. In a stimulus, however, it's likely to be something besides a liquid as common as water because everyone knows how this works. It would likely be broader or about an unfamiliar substance, such as liquids like ferrofluid, or an isotope like tritium. Do you see how that works? Statements about really obvious things or very simple/well-known things (like MJ or water), the conditional relationships is unlikely to be useful. It usually plays a bigger role when it's something we don't know as well, or when the definition is new to us.

Thanks!

[lathlee]

Hi. I saw these lines in a lawyer's webpage regarding a success in life I felt there are some conditional elements in here especially given I just talked with category/characteristic nature in couple days ago with you guys.

"wealth in life is about health family and satisfaction "

" success is defined by what you have overcome to accomplish what you accomplish "

while as the first sentence I am not sure it should be expressed in the conditional category and characteristic conditional relationships, I felt there is a more powerful relationship nature exist in here that can be expressed in conditional terms.

as in, therefore, the second sentence can be expressed in

One overcome to accomplish what one accomplished in life Success

I am so sorry to ask these related Questions which are not from Prep test LSAT materials. And if you choose to answer me, Thank you so much

[lathlee]

"Honesty is best policy." Let's say if I see a statement in an LSAT question, does this fall under category/characteristic. cuz it sounds like it does. one of the scariest thing for me is this kind of sentence consists of Be verbs appear very frequent in LSAT.

best policy's category is honesty in this case , isn't it?

[Adam Tyson]

You certainly could force that claim into a conditional arrangement, like this:

Best Policy Honesty

The question is, does the combination of the stimulus and the stem require you to do so? Is that claim part of an argument, or just part of a fact set? Is it a premise that can be connected to other statements conditionally? Is there another way to analyze the claims? Just because you CAN diagram something conditionally doesn't mean that you SHOULD do so. Don't look for conditionals, because you will start to see them lurking everywhere, and that way lies madness! If the reasoning in the stimulus appears to you to be conditional, and if you feel the need to diagram it in order to make it clear, then do so, but if it is not apparent to you that it is conditional, or if it is but it is simple enough that you can handle it in your head, then don't bother.

Remember that conditional reasoning typically shows up in something under 20% of all LR questions, and of those many will not required a diagram. Some will use conditional reasoning but will not require any conditional analysis at all, being based instead on surveys or analogies or something else. Basically, your default position should be to NOT diagram the stimulus, but to attack it another way.

As to the lawyer's webpage that you saw, I am going to refrain from analyzing them with you, because the content of the LSAT is very specific and is vetted carefully to ensure that each question can be correctly and fairly analyzed to lead to a single correct answer. Extraneous material is simply not up to the rigor of the LSAT, nor is it structured like an LSAT stimulus. The context of the stimulus matters much more than just the combination of words. So going forward, please limit your questions here in this forum to questions about official, published LSAT questions. Trying to use these skills to break down advertisements, common sayings, or what my neighbor said to me in the elevator this morning is misdirected effort and will likely not lead to any improvement on the test. Study the test, and let the real world stay where it belongs!

Stay focused, stay on task, and good luck.

[lathlee]

Again, I would like to apologize for my Thinking-too-much and So Anxious Habits to Bother and waste time from Powerscore Staff. Also, I would like to Thank you guys even bother to look at it and answer such boundary line-stupid question.

[lathlee]

I am terribly sorry for asking this... yeah....but . how did you guys determine which one of the two, honesty vs best policy, what would be constituted as a necessary condition in this character /category relationship or any other character/category relationship? Also, I thought Honesty best policy not the other way around

[Adam Tyson]

That's further reason why this should not be handled conditionally, lathlee - it can go both ways. They are equal. Perhaps the best representation would be a double arrow?

Honesty Best Policy

So honesty is the best policy and the best policy is honesty. Either you have honesty and it is the best policy or else you do not have honesty and it is not the best policy. It's both or neither.

Don't go down the conditional path unless it is helpful! Save yourself the headaches of forcing too much into a conditional relationship, when there are so many other ways to handle the arguments.