Hi Lathlee,
Let's talk a bit about conditional reasoning here, as it applies both in the real world and the LSAT.
First, one of the true dangers of conditionality is that almost anything can be turned into conditionality. This is true for the real world and the LSAT, and one of the comments I make is that it takes a while for you to learn when conditional reasoning is key, and when it's not. I used analogy about driving, and learning over time which other drivers are threats and which are not. This means that often the question isn't whether something can be turned into a conditional statement, but whether it is useful to do so!
If I can generalize for a second, conditional statements that are useful are ones where the sufficiency or necessity seems to tell you something important, or the rigidity and absoluteness of the statement seems useful to the argument or interpreting the effects of the argument. Statements like "To retain goodwill one must please customers" or "Every marsupial has a short gestation period" are typical conditional statements that on the LSAT would likely play some role in answering the question correctly.
Let's now look at your first statement from this perspective: "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." If the LSAT referenced Michael Jordan (which would be cool!), would this statement likely be something key to the problem? I personally don't think so, and if I saw this on the test I would not think about it being conditional. Sure, we could diagram it as you suggest, but what value do we get form doing that? the "acclamation" conditional isn't very strong, and while I could set up a conclusion based on acclamation, it's not likely that would occur. This same sort of scenario is true for thousands of other statements on the LSAT, where conditionality or hints of it exist, but the conditional aspect carries no weight in the battle to solve the problem. This last part is the true problem of working with this concept, because you can drown in the flood of statements that contain the kernels of the idea. One of the assignments I often give students who are really putting in serious hours—and Lathlee, I know you have studied a lot, which I love—is to go back to the LR problems that
don't contain conditionality as part of the identified concepts that played a role in the correct answers, and to look for conditional statements. When viewed from that angle, it can be illuminating to realize how much conditionality is present that you aren't using to solve the problem. This also helps show why most people over-diagram, and it's the reason I give the advice to diagram sparingly (the whole advice it: learn diagramming inside and out so you can use it effectively when needed, but then find your own comfort level of diagramming, which for most people is infrequent).
My last comment is about your second statement: "In Love, We can Trust." Your diagram is correct: Trust
Love. That diagram is there because if you take that statement and ask someone about which condition tells you the other occurred, it's Trust that tells you Love, not the other way around. But, this is again a statement where I wouldn't focus on the conditionality. For lack of a better term, it doesn't feel like a strong conditional relationship, and it's like we are torturing the statement to draw out that diagram.
On the other hand, if I saw, "Without love, trust cannot exist" in an LSAT problem, that
would strike me as a statement where the conditionality is likely to play a bigger role, and I would at least take note of that relationship (some people would diagram it, and that's fine; I might or might not, depends on my mood that day
). the statement is strong and clear, and the other is making a point of letting the reader know that the relationship there is strong and unwavering. that's the kind of conditional statement that often plays a role.
I actually need to think a bit more about how to enunciate what I'm saying here, because it's a point that comes up enough that I want a clearer expression of what I'm saying. But, at least as far as what I've written above, does the idea I'm getting at make sense to you? Conditionality is everywhere, but usually it's not important. The key is to learn how the LSAT uses the idea so you can recognize when it will play a primary role, or at least be helpful in solving the question.
Please let me know what you think. Thanks!
