Visualizing these arguments is helping me learn them:
The Conditional Argument:
Imagine a conveyor belt (→) where if A items come in, B items come out. If you put something on the conveyor belt, you will get the corresponding outcome.
The Contrapositive Argument:
Visualize a seesaw with A on one end and B on the other. If B goes down, then A must go up to balance it out.
Conditional Chaining:
Picture a train moving from A to B to C. If the train goes from A to B and then from B to C, logically, it's like it directly went from A to C.
Some Before All:
Imagine a group of people entering a room. If some people (A) are in a room with all of B and some of B are in a room with all of C, then logically, some of A must also be in the room with all of C.
Most Before All:
Think of a river flowing from A to B to C. If most of the water flows from A to B and then from B to C, it means that there's a significant portion of the water from A that ends up in C.
Two Mosts:
Visualize two buckets, one labeled B and the other labeled C. If most of the items in bucket A can fill both buckets B and C, then logically, there must be some overlap between the contents of buckets B and C.
The fact that I could not understand a single letter here one week ago and now I can read it out loud without even checking my notes speaks volumes, even create quick examples on my mind that are valid when translated to lawgic. I'm gonna destroy this exam and you will also do it <3
@dancingqueen138 translating each question and each of the possible answer to lawgic. It truly gets to the point in which u start mapping things out on your mind as you read. When u get to that point u truly feel that u are becoming faster without necessarily loosing accuracy. Which I think is the goal.
@Fernabkn1 random q, but how do you go about reviewing your LR questions? Do you use a ipad or something like that for easy acess rather than pulling up a notebook and searching for the correlating question?
While I have come to appreciate "Lawgic", it was a bit tricky to follow in the beginning. I wish the curriculum was structured so that we got this entire list (in this format) prior to learning about each type of valid argument so that as we were learning we could see how each component contributes to the overall argument, rather than the structure of the argument being revealed in Lawgic after the fact.
Not that it would make a huge difference to the overall learning, but I think it would have helped me follow along a bit easier.
Nope, i think it helps to think about it like this: 2 scoops of half plus 1 of A letters are being poured into bucket B and bucket C.
However, this isn't possible, I can't put half plus 1 of A into both bucket B and C. This means there must be some overlap between B and C, where they have some of A.
@lauren0683 Hello! I understood the formal argument #6 with the "floating" letters example. Most As are Bs. Most As are Cs. Therefore, it would be valid to say that some Bs are Cs (Remember the "range" that is covered by the word "some"- The range could be from at least one, which would be the minimum, to all of the members of the set).
Assume that the population of As is 5. If we know that most As are Bs, then it would mean that at least three of the As are Bs. If we also say that most As are Cs, then it would also mean that at least three of the As are Bs. This would cause an overlap of an A to have both a B and a C.
@GK Even A Some Arrow C is not guaranteed. There are 50 percent or fewer B's that are not C's. For all we know, all the A's in this sample size are part of the B's that are not C's.
If I have 20 A's and they are all B's, and I have 100 B's in total, and most of those B's are C's, we know at least 51 B's to all B's are C's. That means there are at most 49 to 0 B's that are not C's. If there is a scenario where I have 20 A's and they are all B's it is still possible these 20 A's could be part of 49 of the B's that are not C's.
for "Some Before All" and "Most Before All" does it have to be before? can't it be an all statement, and then a some/most statement and it still works??
If all implies most and most implies some, cant we just convert all these most arrows to some arrows making it easier for us to conclude that some A are E or whatever else we want to conclude?: A --> B -m-> C -m-> D -m-> E
That is essentially a variation on the theme. Since we are not given an exhaustive list, we just have to make logical inferences to compensate for the long list of possible combinations.
57 comments
Visualizing these arguments is helping me learn them:
The Conditional Argument:
Imagine a conveyor belt (→) where if A items come in, B items come out. If you put something on the conveyor belt, you will get the corresponding outcome.
The Contrapositive Argument:
Visualize a seesaw with A on one end and B on the other. If B goes down, then A must go up to balance it out.
Conditional Chaining:
Picture a train moving from A to B to C. If the train goes from A to B and then from B to C, logically, it's like it directly went from A to C.
Some Before All:
Imagine a group of people entering a room. If some people (A) are in a room with all of B and some of B are in a room with all of C, then logically, some of A must also be in the room with all of C.
Most Before All:
Think of a river flowing from A to B to C. If most of the water flows from A to B and then from B to C, it means that there's a significant portion of the water from A that ends up in C.
Two Mosts:
Visualize two buckets, one labeled B and the other labeled C. If most of the items in bucket A can fill both buckets B and C, then logically, there must be some overlap between the contents of buckets B and C.
thank you!!
Whoever is studying and reading this keep crushing it.
Stick with it you owe it to yourself.
over and outttieeee.
Simple examples for anyone struggling:
1. Conditional:
Basketball players are athletes
Tom plays basketball
---
Tom is an athlete
2. Contrapositive:
Basketball players are athletes
Tom is not an athlete
---
Tom does not play basketball
3. Conditional Chaining:
Kittens are cats. Cats are cute
---
Kittens are cute
4. Some before all:
Some cats are pets. (All) Pets are kind
---
Some cats are kind
5. Most before all:
Most cats are pets. (All) Pets are kind
---
Most cats are kind
6. Two Mosts:
Most cats are pets. Most cats are kind.
---
Some pets are kind
@BenjaminBrady Thank you!!!
Love this breakdown summary probably most important page in this section
Verbally it reads
Conditional: If A then B, Thing of A is Thing of B
Contrapositive: If A then B, Thing is not B then Thing is not A
Conditional Chaining: If A then B then C, If A then C
Some before all: Some of A is in B and B is in C, therefore Some of A is in C
Most before All: Most of A is in B and B is in C, therefore Most of A is in C
Two Mosts: Most of A is in B | Most of A is in C, therefore some of B is in C
Is this correct? Wording might not be correct, lmk.
@Oblivion thank you for this
@Oblivion I wish I could love this answer. Very helpful.
The fact that I could not understand a single letter here one week ago and now I can read it out loud without even checking my notes speaks volumes, even create quick examples on my mind that are valid when translated to lawgic. I'm gonna destroy this exam and you will also do it <3
@Fernabkn1 what helped you?
@dancingqueen138 translating each question and each of the possible answer to lawgic. It truly gets to the point in which u start mapping things out on your mind as you read. When u get to that point u truly feel that u are becoming faster without necessarily loosing accuracy. Which I think is the goal.
@Fernabkn1 Seriously!!! The fact I just read this out loud was such a confidence booster.
@Fernabkn1 random q, but how do you go about reviewing your LR questions? Do you use a ipad or something like that for easy acess rather than pulling up a notebook and searching for the correlating question?
While I have come to appreciate "Lawgic", it was a bit tricky to follow in the beginning. I wish the curriculum was structured so that we got this entire list (in this format) prior to learning about each type of valid argument so that as we were learning we could see how each component contributes to the overall argument, rather than the structure of the argument being revealed in Lawgic after the fact.
Not that it would make a huge difference to the overall learning, but I think it would have helped me follow along a bit easier.
completely agree i feel like my understanding moment came literally at this last stage
Bookmarked!
@Hnelson88 lol why am I just realizing we can do this.
I'm still a bit confused about when we use all these formal arguments
#feedback
Can we get this in a diagram?
Definitely book marking!
Should I memorize this or work on being familiar with the language surrounding these arguments?
How should I be learning this concept?
Just a general comment... I come from a mathematics background and all of this reminds me of calculus but with the English language.
Very complex structuring. Making sure we understand English very well, I can see, will help immensely on the exam!
Best of luck everyone!
Also (previous lesson):
A → B
A —m→ C
B ←s→ C
Isn't the last one (Two Mosts) wrong? it should be B←s→C
#help (Added by Admin)
Nope, i think it helps to think about it like this: 2 scoops of half plus 1 of A letters are being poured into bucket B and bucket C.
However, this isn't possible, I can't put half plus 1 of A into both bucket B and C. This means there must be some overlap between B and C, where they have some of A.
I hope this helps!!!
I believe that's what gianfrancop15 is saying. The last answer should be B some C, which is the overlap you're talking about.
definitely will be coming back to review!
Some before all example
Some dogs love kibble. All dogs that love kibble are energetic.
dogs ←s→ love kibble → energetic
therefore we can conclude......
some dogs are energetic
Most before all example
Most people who drink water are healthy. All people who are healthy are athletic.
drink water ‑m→ healthy → athletic
therefore we can conclude...
Most people who drink water are athletic.
Two mosts example
Most students are smart. Most students have planners.
therefore we can conclude....
Some smart students have planners.
Correct me if any of these are incorrect.
If your answers are incorrect, then I will correct it. Inc→C, contrapositve that, /C→/Inc,
If I don't correct any of your answer, then they are correct.
I don't correct any of them, therefore they are correct.
It's beautiful
Oh, it’s clicking!
#help for formal argument #6 Two Mosts:
Is it correct to say that if most of A are B, and most of A are C, that (instead of saying most of B are C) some of A are B and C?
I don't know how to comprehend this argument without thinking of it like that. Here's an example I've been using:
Most dogs have leashes.
Most dogs have collars.
Therefore, some dogs have leashes and collars.
But (correct me if I'm wrong) this^ argument in lawgic form would look more like:
Premise: A -m-> B
Premise: A -m-> C
Conclusion: A B and C
Am I just overcomplicating things? Or is my version incorrect?? Idk I'm getting confused if anyone can help me on this.
@lauren0683 Hello! I understood the formal argument #6 with the "floating" letters example. Most As are Bs. Most As are Cs. Therefore, it would be valid to say that some Bs are Cs (Remember the "range" that is covered by the word "some"- The range could be from at least one, which would be the minimum, to all of the members of the set).
Assume that the population of As is 5. If we know that most As are Bs, then it would mean that at least three of the As are Bs. If we also say that most As are Cs, then it would also mean that at least three of the As are Bs. This would cause an overlap of an A to have both a B and a C.
Visually:
A B
A B
A B C
A C
A C
Hopefully it helps!
#help#feedback should the very last argument here have a conclusion of "B ←s→ C"?
#help I just want to make sure I understand something - is the following chain valid?
A -> B
B -most-> C
The valid conclusion would be A -some-> C, right?
and saying A -most-> C would be invalid?
@GK Even A Some Arrow C is not guaranteed. There are 50 percent or fewer B's that are not C's. For all we know, all the A's in this sample size are part of the B's that are not C's.
If I have 20 A's and they are all B's, and I have 100 B's in total, and most of those B's are C's, we know at least 51 B's to all B's are C's. That means there are at most 49 to 0 B's that are not C's. If there is a scenario where I have 20 A's and they are all B's it is still possible these 20 A's could be part of 49 of the B's that are not C's.
for "Some Before All" and "Most Before All" does it have to be before? can't it be an all statement, and then a some/most statement and it still works??
@FatimaYahya Yeah I think this can work
All Cats are Mammals
Some pets are cats
Therefore some pets are mammals.
All Cats are Mammals
Most Pets are Cats
Therefore, Most pets are Mammals
If all implies most and most implies some, cant we just convert all these most arrows to some arrows making it easier for us to conclude that some A are E or whatever else we want to conclude?: A --> B -m-> C -m-> D -m-> E
Not quite, because if you turn everything into Some, that will make you think you can't make certain inferences when you actually can.
All As are B.
Some As are C.
You can conclude from these that Some Bs are C.
"All As are B" does imply "Some As are B." But if you thought that all we know was
Some As are B
Some As are C
Then you would think there's no inference to be made from the combination of the two statements we started with.
In other words, wouldn't it be much easier to simplify all and most arrows to some arrows?
#feedback in the skill builders, this form appears quite a lot:
All As are Bs
All As are Cs
Therefore, some Bs are Cs.
Shouldn't this also be part of the list then?
That is essentially a variation on the theme. Since we are not given an exhaustive list, we just have to make logical inferences to compensate for the long list of possible combinations.