Justify Formula

[june]

Hi,

I am feeling confused about solving justify questions mechanistically. I thought any "new" element in the conclusion will always appear in the answer choice. The answer choice should link the new element back to the argument. I have been getting many questions wrong because some of the correct answers do not have the "new" element in it.

I've been working on hw Q's in Justify the Conclusion and got all wrong.

Is this technique best used on certain styles only?

Also, do the rules change if there is conditional language?

Thanks,

June

[Jon Denning]

Hey June - thanks for the question.

As for the Formula itself (and the mechanistic breakdown we discuss), the idea is that for a conclusion to be perfectly valid, the given premises and correct answer choice must provide sufficient information so that the conclusion becomes true. So the Formula simply states that when you take the premises and the correct answer, the conclusion as given in the stimulus is unavoidable. It is perfectly valid. That's why the mechanistic approach works so well for Justify: to prove a new piece of information in the conclusion (some rogue piece not mentioned in the premises), the correct answer choice MUST tie that new piece back to the premises, and is therefore immediately recognizable based on what you know it must contain. This obviously works better for some stimulus constructions than it does for others, but it, and the Justify Formula itself, is a completely foolproof way of looking at Justify questions.

I hope that helps!

[june]

Thanks Jon, your explanation was very helpful.