#9 - Some people are Montagues and some people are Capulets.

[Deepthika]

***The content of this question has been removed due to LSAC copyright guidelines. Please reference the June 1991 Prep Test for the full question.***

I am having difficulty with understanding the following question given that there are no explanation notes for some of the take home tests.

Deepthika

[David Boyle]

***The content of this question has been removed due to LSAC copyright guidelines. Please reference the June 1991 Prep Test for the full question.***

I am having difficulty with understanding the following question given that there are no explanation notes for some of the take home tests.

Deepthika

Hello,

This formal-logic problem is a little easier than you might suspect. A lot of questions are like this, actually: they throw out a bunch of stuff, but don't use all of it. This question is answerable by just putting together the last two assertions, "Therefore, Capulets are not Montagues. Anyone who is not a Montague is intemperate."
Or, in diagram form:

C slash M
slash M intemperate

Therefore, C intemperate, in sort of a chain relationship; and that chimes with answer choice E.

David

[akanshachandra]

Hello! Came to this question in the formal logic section of my LRTT, so was trying to do it the way that was taught in the formal logic chapter... Though I got it right, I'm still a little confused on using the formal logic method for solving it!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi A,

This is an interesting problem, and so let's break it down and see what that is :

First sentence: somewhat irrelevant since it's just setting the stage by letting you know there are Montagues (M) and Capulets (C). How do we know? Because of the broadness of the terms ("people").

Second and third sentence, chained together: C CL M

Fourth sentence correctly concludes that: C M

Fifth sentence (the true key to the problem): M I

Note that the last two sentences are the basis for (E): we know that no Ms are Cs, and then that M I . So, everyone else aside from Ms are I, which means that Cs must be I. That's what (E) says, and thus (E) is correct.

An interesting example of how a problem can build to a point where really they are just testing the last sentence (4 of the 5 answers deal with intemperance).

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[Sourpatch]

Hello,

So I was working on this question and trying to use the approach of making the additive inferences and I just went crazy with the diagramming. I realized after looking through the choices I only needed an inference based on the last part. But I had already wasted so much time.

Is there a better way to approach these questions, so I know how much to diagram or even IF I should diagram?

Thanks

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Sourpatch,

Great question! While this question has a LOT of conditionals, many of which aren't relevant, the conditionals are fairly straightforward. Early in practice, this type of question can still take quite a long time as you have to actively and carefully think through the conditionals. Later, this type of question should move much much faster. You want to draw out the conditionals in the stimulus, and connect any you can. There are fewer conditionals here than in some grouping games, and they should be drawable in under 2 minutes or so, once you are comfortable with conditional reasoning. I would not draw out contrapositives here, unless needed to make an inference.

The balance between timing and accuracy is always tough, but I think a question like this is very very difficult without drawing the conditionals. You won't know what conditionals you need until you solve the question. So while it's easy to say looking back that you drew more inferences than you needed, it would have been hard to know that before you found the correct answer choice.

The other option would be to diagram until you find one inference, and hope that is the one in the answer choice. That's a risky strategy though because if you are wrong, you have to mentally go back and figure out where the other inferences might be. It's more efficient to find them all at once, and because your mind is still focused on the conditionals you just wrote, less likely to result in a mistake.

So what should you do if this type of question is still taking forever? The good news is that you still have some time before the test! Work those conditionals! Whenever you see them in a question, draw them out. Draw the contrapositive. Draw out conditionals in answer choices. Diagram like it's your job. In a practice test, only diagram when you need to, but during review of that test, go back to diagramming all the conditionals. Conditional reasoning is something that speeds up with practice. Think about it like learning to read. You don't sound out every letter now when you read a sentence. You automatically blend and combine words. The conditionals in this stimulus should be like that. Smooth, effortless, and automatic.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[wisnain]

Hey there,

I just wanted to double-check if it's appropriate to draw a conditional arrow with the second and third sentences, considering they include 'can(possibility)’ as a verb. My understanding of conditional reasoning is that if the sufficient condition occurs, then the necessary condition 'must' happen.

So, I'm uncertain if saying 'No Montague CAN be crossed in love' and 'All Capulets CAN be crossed in love' constitutes a conditional statement. Could you please clarify?

Thanks.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi wisnain!

Yes, you can diagram both of those sentences using conditional reasoning, and it can be helpful to do so.

The first statement, "No Montague can be crossed in love," can be diagrammed as:

M CL

That is, if someone is a Montague, that person cannot be crossed in love. You'll note that this can also be represented by a double not arrow, as in Dave's diagram above. In general if you have something in the form A B, you can rewrite this as A B. This reflects that A and B can never occur together.

The second statement, "All Capulets can be crossed in love," can be diagrammed as:

C CL

That is to say, if someone is a Capulet, that person can be crossed in love. Note that we could combine the two statements into a chain:

C CL M

[Mmjd12]

Thankfully got this correct, I just want check my diagramming:

Crossed in Love Capulets People Montagues Crossed in Love

Capulet Montagues

Montagues Intemperate

Quick Inference (although there is more than one) : Capulet Intemperate

[Dana D]

Hey Mmjd,

The key inference here is that C M, and M intemperate, therefore you can link them together and say C M intemperate or C intemperate