I'm trying to wrap my head around this. For exercise 2, Senator Amidala delivering her speech is a necessary condition for Chancellor Palpatine to be granted emergency powers, correct? If that is the case, then the reason that the conclusion was invalid was because we have no confirmation that the necessary condition occurred, right?
@karendn yes. since we have no confirmation that a sufficient condition was met for the speech to be delivered, we don't know whether it ever happened. since we know the speech is a necessary condition for the vote, and we have no understanding about the outcome of the speech, we have no confirmation that the necessary condition was met.
This is very nite picky, but wouldn't the only valid inference in exercise one be C because we only know about Tom's six months of training in the force. Isn't it possible that the years of training doesn't only refer to training within the force? It could be cooking, driving, flying, ETC?
About the jedi exercise - so basically if he fails the necessary condition then, its not valid. Because YT is a necessary condition for F, therefore J, he cannot be J? Did I confuse this?
I am struggling to understand the conditional indicators, I thought sufficient indicators always on the left and the necessary indicators alwasy on the right. Also if we see the indicators words like unless in exercises 2, I am confused that the attempt to fail represent the sufficient indicators or necessary indicators, I thought that unless represent to negate the sufficient indicators and in the explanation AAF became the necessary condition. I am kind of confused now.
@OliverJakacki We are creating the assumption that the bomb is the assassination attempt, but since our evaluation doesn't call into question the validity of our assumptions (only the validity of our argument), we can effectively move on.
I'm sort of confused, for exercise 2, the statement "attempt to assassinate her fails" is diagramed as AAF, but not as /AA, such as "assassination attempt negated." So when do you know when to fully negate a premise or not? Doesn't the failing of the assassination attempt imply a negation of such attempt, leading to a change in the diagram? Looking for assistance, thank you!
What really helped me out is putting Exercise 2 into Chat GPT and having it break down exactly why it was wrong and giving me simplifed examples of the same formal logic. Think of these examples:
Valid: A > B
A
Therefore B
Valid: A > B
Not B
Therefore Not A
Invalid: A > B
B
Therefore A (Affirming the consequent)
That's what exercise 2 is doing. and that's why it's important to understand these three formal arguments that combine together with helping you break these types of questions down into more understandable terms. Hope that helps bc it did for me :-)
so is the 2nd exercise wrong bc you can't combine the chains since they both start with the same sufficinet conditions? and vice versa for the contrapositive, you cant link any of the conditions.
For the 1st exercise: Why is E not a correct answer bc according to the chain if you take the contrapositive, it reads as not Extraordinary discipline > not trained ? not a force user > not a Jedi.
@JashanpreetMalhi If the sufficient is true, you can conclude that the necessary is true. If the necessary is false, you can conclude that the sufficient is false. If the necessary is true, you can not make any conclusions from that. If the sufficient is false, you can not make any conclusions from that. The reason that A and C were correct is because if you apply the contrapositive to the whole chain, that makes a sufficient(/years of training) true, which makes the necessary(/force user and /Jedi) true.
This unit has essentially taught be my intuition is a coin flips and so I should never rely on it an always diagram because that's the only way I have been sure to get these right... sigh...
@MJ No seriously, i thuoght number 2 was valid because i mean... if this were a convo with someone it'd be safe to ASSUME shorty would be giving her speech, but this is not a regular convo with assumption based conclusions lol
Example 1: Failing the sufficient condition tells us nothing about the necessary condition...just because the sufficient condition is failed, that does not mean that there is another way to meet the necessary
EX: being in NYC is sufficient for being in the US. What if we are told that we are NOT in NYC? We can't conclude that we are not the USA. We could be in TX, Maine, Indiana, etc.
Example 2: Affirming the necessary condition does nothing for meeting the sufficient condition.
Ex: we are told that being in NYC is sufficient for being in the USA. Just because it is given that we are in the USA, we can't conclude that we are in NYC. After all, the necessary condition of being in the USA can still be true even if we are in Hawaii, Maine, or KY.
BUT, if we are told that the necessary condition is failed, then we know that the sufficient condition was not met.
EX: If we are NOT in the USA, then we KNOW that we are NOT in NYC (because NYC is in the USA)
Diagramming came in clutch for Exercise 2. Intuitively (and wrongly), I thought the conclusion was valid. However, diagramming showed that if the necessary condition occurs, it does NOT guarantee that the sufficient does or does not occur.
The sufficient condition guarantees the necessary condition AND
Failure of the necessary condition guarantees failure of the sufficient condition.
We do NOT know what happens if the necessary DOES occur.
the " failing a sufficient condition means nothing but failing a necessary condition yield's valid conclusions" genuinely shifted the way I have thought about suff/nec for the last year of studying wow. this is SO helpful
@MelHart failing a sufficient condition simply does not give enough information to draw any valid conclusions on the necessary condition.
Texas -> USA : Being in the USA is required, or in other words, necessary to be in Texas.
Let's assume that we are indeed located in the USA (affirming the necessary condition). Does that tell us anything that we can use to be certain about where we actually are in the USA? No, it does not.
Not being in the USA (/USA) cannot guarantee that we are in Texas. We could be in any other state: California, Maryland, etc. We cannot draw any valid conclusion about where we are in the USA. Any valid conclusion must be known for certain.
The opposite applies to negating a sufficient condition.
/Texas (negating a sufficient condition) cannot guarantee that we are, or are not, in the USA. We could be anywhere else that is not Texas(/Texas). We could be in Antarctica, Los Angeles, or in outer space. Anywhere that is not Texas. Negating a sufficient condition does not provide enough information to affirm a necessary condition, just as validating a necessary condition tells us nothing about the validity of the sufficient condition.
I’m a little confused I keep doing it back ways like I did ED YT F J but like I understood it the same but I don’t want to mixed it up for the test so I’m a little confused on knowing when J or F is supposed to be on right or left
300 comments
I refuse to do this caveman language
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. For exercise 2, Senator Amidala delivering her speech is a necessary condition for Chancellor Palpatine to be granted emergency powers, correct? If that is the case, then the reason that the conclusion was invalid was because we have no confirmation that the necessary condition occurred, right?
@karendn yes. since we have no confirmation that a sufficient condition was met for the speech to be delivered, we don't know whether it ever happened. since we know the speech is a necessary condition for the vote, and we have no understanding about the outcome of the speech, we have no confirmation that the necessary condition was met.
@loveholic Thank you!
This is very nite picky, but wouldn't the only valid inference in exercise one be C because we only know about Tom's six months of training in the force. Isn't it possible that the years of training doesn't only refer to training within the force? It could be cooking, driving, flying, ETC?
About the jedi exercise - so basically if he fails the necessary condition then, its not valid. Because YT is a necessary condition for F, therefore J, he cannot be J? Did I confuse this?
I am struggling to understand the conditional indicators, I thought sufficient indicators always on the left and the necessary indicators alwasy on the right. Also if we see the indicators words like unless in exercises 2, I am confused that the attempt to fail represent the sufficient indicators or necessary indicators, I thought that unless represent to negate the sufficient indicators and in the explanation AAF became the necessary condition. I am kind of confused now.
I don't think this is the best way for me to learn conditionals.
i might just be thinking too much, but is it an assumption that the bomb was the assassination attempt, or is that just a given
@OliverJakacki We are creating the assumption that the bomb is the assassination attempt, but since our evaluation doesn't call into question the validity of our assumptions (only the validity of our argument), we can effectively move on.
1/2 hahahahaha I do feel like I am getting it now
Failing a sufficient condition does not yield any valid conclusions, i.e., it does not say anything about the necessary condition
This feels very very important
@AliLazim I like this sentence this is helpful, thanks
note to all the guys. Don't be a Jedi, ED isn't worth it.
@Leebocrowe2004 respectfully i must disagree.
@Kemp13 LOL
I'm sort of confused, for exercise 2, the statement "attempt to assassinate her fails" is diagramed as AAF, but not as /AA, such as "assassination attempt negated." So when do you know when to fully negate a premise or not? Doesn't the failing of the assassination attempt imply a negation of such attempt, leading to a change in the diagram? Looking for assistance, thank you!
@RobertWay Yes, but the logic is the same. You could write it (and the contrapositive) as
But this says nothing about /AA, so the argument is still invalid.
What really helped me out is putting Exercise 2 into Chat GPT and having it break down exactly why it was wrong and giving me simplifed examples of the same formal logic. Think of these examples:
Valid: A > B
A
Therefore B
Valid: A > B
Not B
Therefore Not A
Invalid: A > B
B
Therefore A (Affirming the consequent)
That's what exercise 2 is doing. and that's why it's important to understand these three formal arguments that combine together with helping you break these types of questions down into more understandable terms. Hope that helps bc it did for me :-)
@jaydenca I just tried this! and it was super helpful thank you!!!
So if the premise was "Senator Amidala will deliver her speech if the assassination plot fails" would make the conclusion valid?
@jpyoung I was just gonna ask that, and I think that's correct, because this links the AA failing directly to SAS AND /P
idk I feel like this may be overcomplicating it
so is the 2nd exercise wrong bc you can't combine the chains since they both start with the same sufficinet conditions? and vice versa for the contrapositive, you cant link any of the conditions.
For the 1st exercise: Why is E not a correct answer bc according to the chain if you take the contrapositive, it reads as not Extraordinary discipline > not trained ? not a force user > not a Jedi.
@JashanpreetMalhi If the sufficient is true, you can conclude that the necessary is true. If the necessary is false, you can conclude that the sufficient is false. If the necessary is true, you can not make any conclusions from that. If the sufficient is false, you can not make any conclusions from that. The reason that A and C were correct is because if you apply the contrapositive to the whole chain, that makes a sufficient(/years of training) true, which makes the necessary(/force user and /Jedi) true.
This has been really hard for me. Really hoping that with enough practice and time it will finally stick lol
It's a good thing I like Star Wars. Seems like 7Sage does too.
This unit has essentially taught be my intuition is a coin flips and so I should never rely on it an always diagram because that's the only way I have been sure to get these right... sigh...
@MJ No seriously, i thuoght number 2 was valid because i mean... if this were a convo with someone it'd be safe to ASSUME shorty would be giving her speech, but this is not a regular convo with assumption based conclusions lol
maybe the lessons have been working, but in this case the lawgic def overcomplicated a concept that made complete sense in English.
so question because I think this will help me out. if a sufficient condition is mentioned twice we would create like branch instead of a link?
Example 1: Failing the sufficient condition tells us nothing about the necessary condition...just because the sufficient condition is failed, that does not mean that there is another way to meet the necessary
EX: being in NYC is sufficient for being in the US. What if we are told that we are NOT in NYC? We can't conclude that we are not the USA. We could be in TX, Maine, Indiana, etc.
Example 2: Affirming the necessary condition does nothing for meeting the sufficient condition.
Ex: we are told that being in NYC is sufficient for being in the USA. Just because it is given that we are in the USA, we can't conclude that we are in NYC. After all, the necessary condition of being in the USA can still be true even if we are in Hawaii, Maine, or KY.
BUT, if we are told that the necessary condition is failed, then we know that the sufficient condition was not met.
EX: If we are NOT in the USA, then we KNOW that we are NOT in NYC (because NYC is in the USA)
Is this right?
Diagramming came in clutch for Exercise 2. Intuitively (and wrongly), I thought the conclusion was valid. However, diagramming showed that if the necessary condition occurs, it does NOT guarantee that the sufficient does or does not occur.
The sufficient condition guarantees the necessary condition AND
Failure of the necessary condition guarantees failure of the sufficient condition.
We do NOT know what happens if the necessary DOES occur.
the " failing a sufficient condition means nothing but failing a necessary condition yield's valid conclusions" genuinely shifted the way I have thought about suff/nec for the last year of studying wow. this is SO helpful
@bellaens18 do you mind explaining this a little further? i'm confused.
@MelHart failing a sufficient condition simply does not give enough information to draw any valid conclusions on the necessary condition.
Texas -> USA : Being in the USA is required, or in other words, necessary to be in Texas.
Let's assume that we are indeed located in the USA (affirming the necessary condition). Does that tell us anything that we can use to be certain about where we actually are in the USA? No, it does not.
Not being in the USA (/USA) cannot guarantee that we are in Texas. We could be in any other state: California, Maryland, etc. We cannot draw any valid conclusion about where we are in the USA. Any valid conclusion must be known for certain.
The opposite applies to negating a sufficient condition.
/Texas (negating a sufficient condition) cannot guarantee that we are, or are not, in the USA. We could be anywhere else that is not Texas (/Texas). We could be in Antarctica, Los Angeles, or in outer space. Anywhere that is not Texas. Negating a sufficient condition does not provide enough information to affirm a necessary condition, just as validating a necessary condition tells us nothing about the validity of the sufficient condition.
It's two sides of the same coin, hope this helps!
I’m a little confused I keep doing it back ways like I did ED YT F J but like I understood it the same but I don’t want to mixed it up for the test so I’m a little confused on knowing when J or F is supposed to be on right or left