Okay, so is C a valid inference, except it's wrong b/c it doesn't prove our conclusion as well as B? My diagram looked like this: "Individual Freedom OR pursue the good life---> social integrity (---> rule of law). Looking at C, it fully conforms to this diagram, but B appears to talk directly about "individual freedom" from the conclusion. Does C only look good to me because my diagram is so wrong with the "or"? Or is it still possible, through correct logic, to use this diagram to make the case for B over C?
If it's my diagram/"or pursue good life" that's the issue, how are we expected to make that same judgment call of getting rid of "pursue good life" in real time? I'm really not seeing the field here for how we're supposed to come to that realization, given all of our prior lessons on chaining everything up.
@RamseyEaton I'm not sure what you mean by valid inference. You're right that IF --> SI and PGL --> SI is equivalent to (IF v PGL) --> SI but AC C only states that PGL --> RoL
We can conclude from this that
PGL --> (SI and RoL)
But the conclusion remains as IF --> RoL, and AC C doesn't prove this relationship.
After doing my diagram I can see that the premise says nothing about the rule of law and the conclusion says nothing about social integrity so therefore those two concepts need to be bridged. That leaves me with answer choice B and A. Does anyone understand why A is wrong? I need a better explanation for why its B and not A
@Isabella! i would say because there is no “overlap” between it and the conclusion. No mention of it in the conclusion. Only one of the premises has logical ties to the conclusion. Only one premise mentions individual freedom so only that premise can be tied/chained to the conclusion.
I'm confused on how you know which idea to make negate and make sufficient. Because the premises had "no" and "without" I actually worked in the contrapositive framework, because I thought that would be easier. But, I chose A.
Here is what I got on the map:
/Social Integrity --> /Freedom
/Social Integrity --> /Pursuit
------------------------------
/ROL --> /Freedom
So, do we just always work to not be in a contrapositive or what? Can we get more resources/practice on just mapping?
@16dnholli generally, if you are picking something to negate, pick the thing that's already negated. if the sentence is: "You can't have a pet dog unless your mom gives you permission," pick "can't have a pet dog" to negate (since it is already negative) and then your sentence will be: you can have a pet dog --> your mom gave you permission.
you will save yourself so much hassle doing this. remember, a negative times a negative is a positive :)
Not sure if this will help, but I struggled with the same thing on this question. It helps to think about it like this for me:
For the sentence, “Pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity,” the idea is that social integrity is necessary for pursuing the good life. In other words, if someone is pursuing the good life, then they must have social integrity.
So the conditional would be:
Pursuing the good life → social integrity
This means that pursuing the good life is the sufficient condition, while social integrity is the necessary condition. You can think of social integrity as the larger umbrella: pursuing the good life requires it, but social integrity may include many other things beyond just pursuing the good life.
@Bruh I would think about it this way: if the author only had 10 seconds to get their point across, what would they say? There is no individual freedom without social integrity? Nope. Pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity? Nope.
It's the conclusion: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law.
Then, you could ask: Why? Why can there be no individual freedom without the rule of law?
And that would then lead to the premises.
Hopefully imagining it that way helps! Otherwise, you can just think of "for" as a premise indicator.
This was quite confusing for me, I kept writing the arrows as rol -> indiv freedom because one led to the other but mixed it up becuse I forgot that rol is necessary for indiv freedom so i would be indiv freedom -> rol
@VincentLaGuardiaG. This is tempting but incorrect. "There is no individual freedom without the rule of law" still allows for the rule of law without individual freedom.
Each piece of the stim is the same structure, with the conc as the first claim supported by 2 more starting at "for..."
This not without this. So we negate sufficient each claim the same way.
P: Individual Freedom -> Social Integrity
P: Good Life -> Social Integrity
C: Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law
So we're probably looking for something that gives us:
Individual Freedom -> (Social Integrity) -> Rule of Law
It's also nice that most ACs are negate sufficient as well! This makes the analysis pretty straightforward.
A - suff/nec condition confusion.
B - Social Integrity -> Rule of Law. Correct, as predicted. This fills in the gap perfectly, and even with the same structure as the rest of the argument. Nice.
C - Good Life -> Rule of Law. Does not help with the stim's conclusion at all. In fact, it is an alt conclusion for the stim that AC B would make valid. It's a different question altogether.
D - suff/nec confusion. Prevails feels like a weird word choice here as well, but idk.
E - suff/nec confusion. It actually directly contradicts the conclusion in the stim, so it's egregiously wrong.
For answer choice C -
Our stim gives us a conclusion:
Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law
AC C gives an alt conclusion:
Good Life -> Rule of Law
AC B is the correct sufficient assumption for both of these conclusions. AC C is incorrect because it is not a sufficient assumption for the argument in the stim as written.
137 comments
Writing out the cat example helped me understand the word fluff a lot better:
A cat cannot exist without being a vertebrate, for there is no cat that is not a mammal, and a dog cannot exist without being a mammal.
A. There can be no vertebrate without being a mammal.
-Vertebrate → Mammal
B. There can be no mammal without being a vertebrate.
-Mammal → Vertebrate
C. One cannot be a dog without being a vertebrate.
-Dog → Vertebrate
D. Existing as a mammal is possible only if one is a cat.
-Mammal → Cat
E. There can be no vertebrate without being a cat.
-Vertebrate → Cat
@Hashibiro ME TOO
Why is D a bi-conditional and E a sufficiency-necessity confusion?
all question types lead back to conditionals cries
Okay, so is C a valid inference, except it's wrong b/c it doesn't prove our conclusion as well as B? My diagram looked like this: "Individual Freedom OR pursue the good life---> social integrity (---> rule of law). Looking at C, it fully conforms to this diagram, but B appears to talk directly about "individual freedom" from the conclusion. Does C only look good to me because my diagram is so wrong with the "or"? Or is it still possible, through correct logic, to use this diagram to make the case for B over C?
If it's my diagram/"or pursue good life" that's the issue, how are we expected to make that same judgment call of getting rid of "pursue good life" in real time? I'm really not seeing the field here for how we're supposed to come to that realization, given all of our prior lessons on chaining everything up.
@RamseyEaton I'm not sure what you mean by valid inference. You're right that IF --> SI and PGL --> SI is equivalent to (IF v PGL) --> SI but AC C only states that PGL --> RoL
We can conclude from this that
PGL --> (SI and RoL)
But the conclusion remains as IF --> RoL, and AC C doesn't prove this relationship.
After doing my diagram I can see that the premise says nothing about the rule of law and the conclusion says nothing about social integrity so therefore those two concepts need to be bridged. That leaves me with answer choice B and A. Does anyone understand why A is wrong? I need a better explanation for why its B and not A
@TekenaAbere nvm i get it now!
i think lawgic will never make sense to me/doesn't seem to make things either. i just straight up interpret sometimes and try to answer from there.
@eimanintikhab i feel this so much
Answering this question would have made an excellent medieval torture method back in the day
#Question - Why do we ignore "the good life" part of the premise?
@Isabella! i would say because there is no “overlap” between it and the conclusion. No mention of it in the conclusion. Only one of the premises has logical ties to the conclusion. Only one premise mentions individual freedom so only that premise can be tied/chained to the conclusion.
I'm confused on how you know which idea to make negate and make sufficient. Because the premises had "no" and "without" I actually worked in the contrapositive framework, because I thought that would be easier. But, I chose A.
Here is what I got on the map:
/Social Integrity --> /Freedom
/Social Integrity --> /Pursuit
------------------------------
/ROL --> /Freedom
So, do we just always work to not be in a contrapositive or what? Can we get more resources/practice on just mapping?
@16dnholli Would love to know the answer to this as well
@16dnholli generally, if you are picking something to negate, pick the thing that's already negated. if the sentence is: "You can't have a pet dog unless your mom gives you permission," pick "can't have a pet dog" to negate (since it is already negative) and then your sentence will be: you can have a pet dog --> your mom gave you permission.
you will save yourself so much hassle doing this. remember, a negative times a negative is a positive :)
@16dnholli @LSATKilla87
Not sure if this will help, but I struggled with the same thing on this question. It helps to think about it like this for me:
For the sentence, “Pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity,” the idea is that social integrity is necessary for pursuing the good life. In other words, if someone is pursuing the good life, then they must have social integrity.
So the conditional would be:
Pursuing the good life → social integrity
This means that pursuing the good life is the sufficient condition, while social integrity is the necessary condition. You can think of social integrity as the larger umbrella: pursuing the good life requires it, but social integrity may include many other things beyond just pursuing the good life.
How do we know that the first sentence is the conclusion?
I mapped it like this at first, which I obviously didn't know what to do with.
Freedom > ROL
Freedom > Social Integrity > Good life
@Bruh I would think about it this way: if the author only had 10 seconds to get their point across, what would they say? There is no individual freedom without social integrity? Nope. Pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity? Nope.
It's the conclusion: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law.
Then, you could ask: Why? Why can there be no individual freedom without the rule of law?
And that would then lead to the premises.
Hopefully imagining it that way helps! Otherwise, you can just think of "for" as a premise indicator.
@r.wang1 Thank u!!
got it right but mapped it completely backwards im screwed
This was quite confusing for me, I kept writing the arrows as rol -> indiv freedom because one led to the other but mixed it up becuse I forgot that rol is necessary for indiv freedom so i would be indiv freedom -> rol
I feel like "kicking things up into the domain" confuses me more
tried doing by myself it was not possible idk I am missing something here
might as well just discard the little lightbulbs which contain the "explanations" for each answer.
🧎🏾♀️🧎🏾♀️🧎🏾♀️
i am so hopeless at lawgic i just don't cant map these correctly to save my life
[This comment was deleted.]
@VincentLaGuardiaG. This is tempting but incorrect. "There is no individual freedom without the rule of law" still allows for the rule of law without individual freedom.
@VincentLaGuardiaG. no. "Without" is a Group Three indicator.
The final premise is translated as /SI -> /GL (GL -> SI), whereas you translated it backwards.
So C is valid but irrelevant?
2/2 for the 5 star difficult questions .. but I missed all the others ?? Lol
@LawyeRell same thing happened to me! i think things are finally clicking lol
This question fried my brain
Each piece of the stim is the same structure, with the conc as the first claim supported by 2 more starting at "for..."
This not without this. So we negate sufficient each claim the same way.
P: Individual Freedom -> Social Integrity
P: Good Life -> Social Integrity
C: Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law
So we're probably looking for something that gives us:
Individual Freedom -> (Social Integrity) -> Rule of Law
It's also nice that most ACs are negate sufficient as well! This makes the analysis pretty straightforward.
A - suff/nec condition confusion.
B - Social Integrity -> Rule of Law. Correct, as predicted. This fills in the gap perfectly, and even with the same structure as the rest of the argument. Nice.
C - Good Life -> Rule of Law. Does not help with the stim's conclusion at all. In fact, it is an alt conclusion for the stim that AC B would make valid. It's a different question altogether.
D - suff/nec confusion. Prevails feels like a weird word choice here as well, but idk.
E - suff/nec confusion. It actually directly contradicts the conclusion in the stim, so it's egregiously wrong.
For answer choice C -
Our stim gives us a conclusion:
Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law
AC C gives an alt conclusion:
Good Life -> Rule of Law
AC B is the correct sufficient assumption for both of these conclusions. AC C is incorrect because it is not a sufficient assumption for the argument in the stim as written.
@gurbytown This is really great way to explain this!