relationships
comparative
some intersection
relatas:
cause vs effect
paragraph 1 vs 2
phenomenon vs hypothesis
support (relatas: premise vs conclusion)
aim: persuasion (subjective)
relationship 2
(clauses linked together to emphasize relationships)
disjunction
conditional claims (sufficient and necessary condition)
indicators
unless
causal claims (cause and effect)
indicators
because
analogies (one thing is like another thing)
source vs target clause
indicators
just as
comparatives
two things that stand in comparison to each other w one of two coming on top
a vs b (what are you comparing)
quality/characteristic of comparison
identify “winner”
negative comparatives
when comparatives have “no” or “not” there may be no clear winner
ex: allison is not taller than jake
implied comparatives
no than in the statement
ex: tom is feeling better today, cafes are busier during the morning rush
relative vs absolute
comparatives are usually relative without making absolute statements but context can sometimes imply absolute qualities
ex: jake is not taller than allison and they play basketball
they are likely tall, but it is not absolute
equivalence
i am older than you=you are younger than me
arguments
an argument consists of premises and a conclusion that aims to persuade
support structures the argument, and support depends on assumptions
assumptions are a “forgotten” premise that can be subtle
less reasonable assumptions render an argument vulnerable to criticism
Valid arguments (on the LSAT) require no additional unstated assumptions for the conclusion to follow from the premises.
Invalid arguments require at least one necessary assumption.
wonder “what the author wants me to believe” and “why should i believe this”
conclusion indicators (words followed by a conclusion)
consequently
therefore
as a result
clearly
it follows that
accordingly
we may conclude
it entails
hence
thus
we may infer that
it must be that
it implies that
that is why
premise indicators (words followed by premise)
given that
seeing that
for the reason that
owing to
as indicated by
after all
on the grounds that
words that are followed by a premise but also contain a conclusion
for
because
since
types of questions
Must Be True questions
phenomenon-hypothesis
causation logic
subconclusion: claim that receives and gives support
Premise: All dogs are adorable.
Premise: Fluffers is a dog.
Sub-conclusion: Therefore, Fluffers is adorable.
Premise: All adorable things are cute.
Conclusion: Fluffers is cute.
sub arguments make a complex argument
context (used as referent for referential phrase)
table setting
information explaining a premise
other peoples position
an opposite conclusion they claim is incorrect
concession
making the opposing argument before the other can
context transition indicators
but
however
yet
some people say
concession indicators
despite
in spite of
although
though
even though
even if
notwithstanding
while
clause
subject
gerund or noun
predicate
verb/object
subject vs predicate noun modifier indicators
that
who
predicate modifier indicators
of
by
in
for
(where, how, when, why )
predicate object indicator
the
object clause
that can be used to make a clause the subject
indicator
that
ex: scientists discovered that the sky is blue
referent
stands in place of something that appeared earlier
negative: not that (other/otherwise)
rhetorical questions
implied declarative statement for dramatic effect (more persuasive)
logic
formal
form of argument matters more than content (valid/invalid)
includes
conditional logic (sufficient/necessary conditions)
logic btwn sets
supersets, subsets, intersecting sets, and membership in those sets
main concern is what must be true
informal (typical of reading comprehension
all other types of logic
causation
analogies
generalization
scientific reasoning
rule application reasoning
cost-benefit analysis
misc
subject to be made stronger or weaker
how well supported
sets
set: abstract collection of members
membership: something belongs to such set
when a set is inside a set
superset: larger one
subset: smaller one
sufficiency vs necessity conditions
subset membership is sufficient for superset membership but not necessary
superset membership is necessary for subset membership but not sufficient
subset is to superset as sufficiency is to necessity
if dot is in cat-set, it is sufficient to know the dot is inside mammal-set
membership in a mammal-set is necessary for membership in cat-set
membership in mammal-set is not sufficient for membership in cat-set (membership in cat-set is not necessary for membership in mammal-set)
conditional argument (formal argument)
when sufficient condition is true, the necessary condition is also true
Membership in Set A is sufficient for membership in Set B. X is a member of Set A. Therefore, X is a member of Set B
conditional indicators (logical indicators)
the idea immediately following the conditional indicator is the sufficient condition
If X, Y
when
where
all
every
any
the only
the idea immediately following the conditional indicator is the necessary condition
only
only if
only when
only where
always
must
truth vs validity
truth is property of claims (true vs false)
validity is property of arguments (valid/invalid)
validity: if (or pretend that) all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
“lawgic”
→ establishes a conditional relationship
sufficient condition (left side) to a necessary condition (right side)
subscripts represent membership of set
L^J represents Luke's membership in the set of Jedi.
conditional argument shape:
categorical syllogism
A → B
x^A
____
x^B
OR
modus ponens
sufficient → necessary
sufficient
____
necessary
0 comments