Subscription pricing
I'm really struggling with trying to intuitively figure out if conditionality is relevant to the flaw for the argument at hand. There are certain stimuli that include conditional indicators that seem to be linked together. When this happens, I immediately go and try to diagram it, to try to see if there is in fact conditional reasoning. Sometimes, I am correct and there is conditional reasoning that deals with the flaw. However, there are many more times when I am incorrect and I end up spending so much time trying to force a diagram. I'm struggling to zoom on the gap in my understanding. I thought I had a solid understanding of conditional reasoning, but clearly it's not the case. Has anyone run into this issue before? Any advice is welcomed. Thanks!
0
2 comments
@dimakyure869 said:
When this happens, I immediately go and try to diagram it, to try to see if there is in fact conditional reasoning.
I would say this is the issue. You shouldn't be jumping into diagramming at the first "if/then" you see, especially just to see if conditional reasoning should be part of your attack. Often, this is a trap - conditional indicators as bait, followed by another premise that does not lend itself to diagramming. Read the stimulus first and try to get an idea of what's going on. Then go back and draw it out if needed.
I had the same problem and forced myself to do this. Now I'll typically have 1-2 questions drawn out per LR section at most.
I've found (in my experience) that if there is a flaw that deals with formal logic, overwhelmingly it's sufficiency vs necessity. Therefore, I tend not to diagram flaw questions and instead focus on comprehending the stimulus. I won't go to the ACs until I can see a gap in reasoning that is likely the issue at hand.