Diagramming Question

[voodoochild]

Experts,
How can I diagram this?

Playing music is the only way one can have real fun.

Play music -> fun OR fun -> play music.

To me, the first one sounds better because "playing music" guarantees (=suff condition) fun. However, if I look at it from a different perspective, if I am having fun, it means that I must have played guitar. In other words, fun music.

Really confused. It will be great if you could explain the reasoning.

Please help.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

We actually had a lengthy discussion in another thread about phrases such as this one. Check that out at: http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... =12&t=2479

After reading that, how would you diagram it now?

Thanks and good luck!

[voodoochild]

Dave,
Thanks for that link.

If I go by Nikki's explanation and substitute "the only" for a sufficient condition, the answer will be "fun music" -- However, I am not sure whether this sounds okay.

To me, If I go by logic, music fun sounds better because If I play music, it is guaranteed that I will have fun. (See, even while explaining my thought process, I wrote down play music fun)

Can you please help me?

Thanks in advance

[mkuo]

Hi Voodoochild,

I'm no expert but perhaps I can explain by sharing my thoughts.

Playing music is the only way one can have real fun.

In my mind, I ask "how many ways can one do to have real fun?"
Your claim "only one way. And its by playing music."

Hence, if you want to have real fun, the only possible way for that is playing music.
In other words, if you are having real fun, then you most definitely are playing music.

If ---> then
Sufficient ---> necessary
Real fun ---> playing music.

Playing music could lead to many things, real fun included. But your claim does not state a guaranteed result of achieving real fun.

Unless you say something like

Having real fun is the only way one can play music.

Though I'm sure one can play music like a chore... which might not be fun at all (oh god piano lesson flashbacks)

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

The primary issue in your response are in these lines:

However, I am not sure whether this sounds okay...To me, If I go by logic,

Whether something "sounds" ok or makes sense to you is actually irrelevant because your job isn't to figure out what makes sense in your world, but to identify precisely what the author said in his or her world. Thus, in thinking about how things sound (that is, are they logical), try to impose your worldview on what the author said, and that will kill you on the LSAT (and any standardized test).

When I read the sentence you are trying to diagram, I don't even think about the relationship of fun and music in the real world. I use the indicators and process the sentence lightning fast. Following the advice in that thread, you diagrammed it correctly, and you should have just stopped there because you had captured what the author said.

Keep in mind that authors sometimes make statements that aren't logical, so if you spend all your time trying to impose your view on the sentence by thinking about what sounds right, you'll miss some problems, and you'll complete many others too slowly. The rule is this: be a machine when you can (when indicators are present), and save the thinking for when you need it--when there aren't any indicators.

Thanks!

[voodoochild]

Thanks Dave. Like your book, your responses are always helpful.

I am quite surprised by the last sentence in your post because if you remember, you specifically recommended that I not see conditional relationships in all sentences. In other words, don't be a robot because we are dealing with highly sophisticated language issues. Not every sentence must/should be processed in a robotic way. (For others, who are reading, please search for "the purpose of an art is to" thread ...)



{I read this sentence again, and now my brain clearly said fun music. I re-read the modifier analysis in your book. If I am playing music, does it guarantee fun? No. It's "the only way". However, if I had real fun, does it mean that I must have played music? Yes, because that is 'the only way' - I think it makes sense.

Another example : The only squirrel that wiggles its tail is considered cute. Here, clearly cuteness is necessary condition. wiggle cute. 'wiggle' guarantees cuteness because that's the definition. 'cuteness' doesn't guarantee wiggle. There could be other factors.

Another example : A prime number is the only number that has only two factors.
number with two factors prime number

Another example : A prime number is 'any' number that is not divisible by other number.
(Here's what I think: not divisible by other number prime number)

A prime number is a number that is not divisible other number number.
Prime number not divisible by other number.

}

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks again.
-Voodoo Child

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

Let's take a look at this part of your reply only:

I am quite surprised by the last sentence in your post because if you remember, you specifically recommended that I not see conditional relationships in all sentences. In other words, don't be a robot because we are dealing with highly sophisticated language issues. Not every sentence must/should be processed in a robotic way. (For others, who are reading, please search for "the purpose of an art is to" thread ...)

Please keep in mind that when I made that comment, you were trying to impose conditional reasoning diagrams on virtually everything you read. That, we discussed, causes numerous problems. My comment in my last post is predicated on the idea that you've moved beyond that, and now know when conditional reasoning is present and relevant. At that point, apply the rule I reference.

The logic under conditionality does make sense. My point was that by trying to suss out that logic when you can just use indicators is a waste of time, time that can be better spent elsewhere on the exam. Plus, sentences can be crafted in a way that in the real world they make no real sense (for example, "to achieve world peace, I must be able to enjoy this candy" -- Achieve Peace Enjoy Candy .... what?). Thinking about sentences like that is confusing and time-consuming, hence my recommendation to rely on the indicators to understand what the author said.

Thanks!

[voodoochild]

Plus, sentences can be crafted in a way that in the real world they make no real sense (for example, "to achieve world peace, I must be able to enjoy this candy" -- Achieve Peace Enjoy Candy .... what?). Thinking about sentences like that is confusing and time-consuming, hence my recommendation to rely on the indicators to understand what the author said.

Thanks!

Thanks Dave. I liked that "candy" conditionality. haha.

Thank you so much.