This answer choice is logicallysound. However, this means we have 2 absolute reasons why we know A is not correct now.
We are looking for a FLAWED answer choice and A is not flawed.
The logic of A --> B == /B --> /A does not match the stimulus which provided the flawed logic of
A --> B == /A --> /B
If A were to be correct it should have said "It therefore follows that bread that does not h
B on the other hand is both flawed and follows the same reasoning/conclusion
taste good --> right flour == /taste good --> /right flour
This answer choice is FLAWED
It matches the same chain of logic
Therefore B is the correct answer.
tldr: basically the stimulus provides a logic chain that is flawed. when i was doing the question I read that A had the same amount of conditions and structure but the conclusion was logically sound (not flawed) so A must be wrong. B on the other hand had the same condition and structure but the conclusion logic was flawed in the same structure as the stimulus.
This question specifically can be broken down simply with logic. I don't think you need a thorough understanding of causal vs. conditional to work through it.
But in general, you can read this causal stim as:
"If a thing is to happen, then it requires this thing to cause it."
Whereas a conditional stim might read something like:
"If an object looks like plop, then it must be a blorp."
But for this question, just use simple arrows and you can get it right:
p: Healthy Bones -> Calcium
c: /Healthy Bones -> /Calcium
This is flawed because nec/suff confusion. The only valid inference is the contrapositive /Calcium -> /Healthy Bones.
AC B:
A cake must (nec) contain the right amount of flour in order to (suff) taste good. It therefore follows that cakes that do not taste good do not contain the right amount of flour.
Taste Good -> Right Flour
/Taste Good -> /Right Flour
Bingo, the flaw pattern matches the stim. Right answer. I didn't even once consider causal vs conditional.
@lollipoppy for myself, I consider any argument that involves change over time to be in the realm of causal reasoning. This doesn't mean you can infer a causal relationship. It means the reasoning is operating in the universe where causes happen, instead of, e.g., material conditional reasoning, which is about states and the truth value of those states.
@LydiannaTrudel stimulus is healthy bones --> has sufficient calcium, therefore /healthy bones --> /sufficient calcium. this is flawed because it's confusing necessary and sufficient. (b) makes the same mistake; cake tastes good --> has the right amount of flour, therefore /tastes good --> /right amount of flour. (a) does not have this mistake. firm crust --> right temperature, therefore /right temp --> /firm crust. (a) doesn't have any mistakes, the logic is valid
What if there were an answer choice that wasn't causal but nonetheless committed the same flaw of negating the sufficient condition (A→B, therefore, /A→/B)?
I was so confused on this and it was annoying b/c it was so simple. I couldnt find the right answer and then went over again and realized I inccorectly mapped out B from the "must" indicator. The stim is A--->B /A----->/B, I had B mapped out as A----B /B---->/A and I was like wtf till I realzied the must and swapped it to /A---->/B and then made sense to why B is correct. The incorrect mapping is AC A.
I'm having trouble figuring out whether the stimulus is conditional logic or causal logic, because I initially thought this stimulus was conditional. Is there a way to distinguish between the two, or are there cases in which a stimulus can be both conditional and causal?
If someone told you that they didn't have a hangover this morning, would you automatically conclude they didn't touch alcohol last night? Obviously not. I had a liver of steel as a college student and simply did not get hangovers.
Similarly, if I told you that I drank alcohol, you cannot conclude that I will definitively experience a hangover.
Now let's look at sufficient causes.
drinking a handle of vodka (sufficient cause) → alcohol poisoning (effect)
Makes sense, right? Now unless you're superhuman, if you did NOT go to the ER then you can logically conclude that you did NOT drink an entire handle of vodka.
After some consideration, I realized that B is correct bc 'must' is a positive necessary indicator so the order of things is taste good --> right amount of flour
#feedback: please upload a lesson in the foundation syllabus on necessary cause and sufficient cause. It is confusing, and I am forced to make my own assumptions for the question where such causal language is used.
there are doing a mistaken negation (mistaking sufficiency for necessity)
I think for a quick shallow review one can easily get rid of C, D, E. It gets difficult between A and B.
You can solve this by quickly graphing one of the answers if its wrong just chose the other without graphing. In this case I graphed AC B.
Premise: G (TASTE GOOD) --> F (RIGHT AMT OF FLOUR)
Conclusion: /G ---> /F
this perfectly matches the structure of the stimulus and made me chose this answer. It's honestly very difficult to answers these without graphing so def would reccomend eliminating 2-3 on initial review without graphing than go and graph one that you truly think seems more right from the remaning AC's as quick as possible in hopes that it is the right one.
Not me doing a little dance after getting 4 questions right so far and I thought my formal logic skills were weak maybe I will be humbled in the future but time to dance for now.
i want to make sure so with necessary causes, absence of effect does not imply absence of cause. With sufficiency causes, it is true that absence of cause does not imply absence of effect. I just wanna make sure I have this right.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
59 comments
I hate this question I'm still confused b/w A and B.
@fr180
The correct logic of the stimulus SHOULD BE:
healthy bones --> sufficient calcium == sufficient calcium --> /healthy bones
or
A --> B == /B --> /A
How the stimulus concludes it to be:
healthy bones --> sufficient calcium == /healthy bones --> /sufficient calcium
A --> B == /A --> /B
We are looking to match the flawed logic of A --> B == /A --> /B within the answer choices
A's logic (how the answer choice concludes it):
firm crust --> right temp == /right temp --> /firm crust
A --> B == /B --> /A
This answer choice is logically sound. However, this means we have 2 absolute reasons why we know A is not correct now.
We are looking for a FLAWED answer choice and A is not flawed.
The logic of A --> B == /B --> /A does not match the stimulus which provided the flawed logic of
A --> B == /A --> /B
If A were to be correct it should have said "It therefore follows that bread that does not h
B on the other hand is both flawed and follows the same reasoning/conclusion
taste good --> right flour == /taste good --> /right flour
This answer choice is FLAWED
It matches the same chain of logic
Therefore B is the correct answer.
tldr: basically the stimulus provides a logic chain that is flawed. when i was doing the question I read that A had the same amount of conditions and structure but the conclusion was logically sound (not flawed) so A must be wrong. B on the other hand had the same condition and structure but the conclusion logic was flawed in the same structure as the stimulus.
Saw "classic flaw" in the summary and guessed sufficiency/necessity confusion, I've grownnnn
@tessapys exactly how I felt too when I recognized it haha!
Anyone have helpful guides to know if a premise without key causal indicators is causal?
This question specifically can be broken down simply with logic. I don't think you need a thorough understanding of causal vs. conditional to work through it.
But in general, you can read this causal stim as:
"If a thing is to happen, then it requires this thing to cause it."
Whereas a conditional stim might read something like:
"If an object looks like plop, then it must be a blorp."
But for this question, just use simple arrows and you can get it right:
p: Healthy Bones -> Calcium
c: /Healthy Bones -> /Calcium
This is flawed because nec/suff confusion. The only valid inference is the contrapositive /Calcium -> /Healthy Bones.
AC B:
A cake must (nec) contain the right amount of flour in order to (suff) taste good. It therefore follows that cakes that do not taste good do not contain the right amount of flour.
Taste Good -> Right Flour
/Taste Good -> /Right Flour
Bingo, the flaw pattern matches the stim. Right answer. I didn't even once consider causal vs conditional.
@lollipoppy for myself, I consider any argument that involves change over time to be in the realm of causal reasoning. This doesn't mean you can infer a causal relationship. It means the reasoning is operating in the universe where causes happen, instead of, e.g., material conditional reasoning, which is about states and the truth value of those states.
Uh can someone explain why B is right and A is wrong?
@LydiannaTrudel stimulus is healthy bones --> has sufficient calcium, therefore /healthy bones --> /sufficient calcium. this is flawed because it's confusing necessary and sufficient. (b) makes the same mistake; cake tastes good --> has the right amount of flour, therefore /tastes good --> /right amount of flour. (a) does not have this mistake. firm crust --> right temperature, therefore /right temp --> /firm crust. (a) doesn't have any mistakes, the logic is valid
Skill issue
I do not understand how the first sentence in B is correct is it reads cause > effect instead of effect > cause like the question
im cooked
is there a lesson that shows the difference between causal and conditional?
i love you j.y. from 7sage, thanks for encouraging me to be over-confident. #parasocialrelationship
eaaaasy
What if there were an answer choice that wasn't causal but nonetheless committed the same flaw of negating the sufficient condition (A→B, therefore, /A→/B)?
#feedback is there a way to quickly see the correct answer on this new site? May have missed it, thank you
I was so confused on this and it was annoying b/c it was so simple. I couldnt find the right answer and then went over again and realized I inccorectly mapped out B from the "must" indicator. The stim is A--->B /A----->/B, I had B mapped out as A----B /B---->/A and I was like wtf till I realzied the must and swapped it to /A---->/B and then made sense to why B is correct. The incorrect mapping is AC A.
Can someone please explain why A is wrong and B is right. This is how I mapped it out:
Question:
Healthy Bones -> Sufficient Calcium (A->B)
Not Healthy Bones -> Not Sufficient Calcium (NOT A -> NOT B)
For answer choice A:
Firm crust -> baked at right temp (A->B)
Not baked at right temp -> not firm crust (Not B->Not A)
For answer choice B:
Right amount of flour -> taste good (A->B)
Does not taste good -> not right amount of flour (Not B->Not A)
are these not the same?
you mapped answer choice B wrong.
its tastes good-> right amount of flour
because the sentence states that a cake MUST (necessary indicator) contain the right amount of flour in order to taste good.
from there you would map the conditional premise as A-> B and the conclusion is Not A-> Not B which matches the stimulus
The stim maps like this
DHB = develops health bones
DIC = Diet in calcium
If DHB → DIC
/DHB → /DIC
This is a mistaken reversal as the actual contrapositive of the premise is
/DIC → /DHB
Thus the stim has flawed conditional reasoning!!
AC A takes the contrastive properly — it is a sound argument
AC B performs the same mistaken reversal as the stim and is thus the correct answer
Your answer was incorrect because you accurately mapped the contrastive of the premise — the LSAt author did not!!
@almond77 must introduces a sufficient condition/rule. So it's tastes good --> right amount of flour
And the conclusion is /tastes good --> /right amount of flour which is the same flaw in the stimulus (mistaken reversal)
A's conclusion is a contrapositive which is not really a flaw.
@murphy.matt.j you're the GOAT for this explanation. I was having the same question and your explanation was so insightful!
I'm having trouble figuring out whether the stimulus is conditional logic or causal logic, because I initially thought this stimulus was conditional. Is there a way to distinguish between the two, or are there cases in which a stimulus can be both conditional and causal?
yes that's what he said in the beginning I believe. He said that this stim can be analyze through both frameworks.
I don't see the difference between A and B...I thought it was A based that it said "If->then"
A does not make the flaw that B does even though it is the same kind of argument.
With conditional causal logic, I like to conceptualize it as drinking alcohol and hangovers.
hangover (effect) → drinking alcohol (necessary cause)
/drinking alcohol → /hangover
If someone told you that they didn't have a hangover this morning, would you automatically conclude they didn't touch alcohol last night? Obviously not. I had a liver of steel as a college student and simply did not get hangovers.
Similarly, if I told you that I drank alcohol, you cannot conclude that I will definitively experience a hangover.
Now let's look at sufficient causes.
drinking a handle of vodka (sufficient cause) → alcohol poisoning (effect)
Makes sense, right? Now unless you're superhuman, if you did NOT go to the ER then you can logically conclude that you did NOT drink an entire handle of vodka.
/alcohol poisoning → /drinking a handle of vodka
After some consideration, I realized that B is correct bc 'must' is a positive necessary indicator so the order of things is taste good --> right amount of flour
B tricked me with grammer, there was a must which indicated necessary.
#feedback: please upload a lesson in the foundation syllabus on necessary cause and sufficient cause. It is confusing, and I am forced to make my own assumptions for the question where such causal language is used.
"in order to"
B tricked me up on the grammar. I see it now.
I graphed the stimulus as
premise = HB (HEALTHY BONES) --> SC (SUFFICIENT CALCIUIM)
Conclusion : /HB --> /SC
there are doing a mistaken negation (mistaking sufficiency for necessity)
I think for a quick shallow review one can easily get rid of C, D, E. It gets difficult between A and B.
You can solve this by quickly graphing one of the answers if its wrong just chose the other without graphing. In this case I graphed AC B.
Premise: G (TASTE GOOD) --> F (RIGHT AMT OF FLOUR)
Conclusion: /G ---> /F
this perfectly matches the structure of the stimulus and made me chose this answer. It's honestly very difficult to answers these without graphing so def would reccomend eliminating 2-3 on initial review without graphing than go and graph one that you truly think seems more right from the remaning AC's as quick as possible in hopes that it is the right one.
Not me doing a little dance after getting 4 questions right so far and I thought my formal logic skills were weak maybe I will be humbled in the future but time to dance for now.
Your comments make these lessons a bit more bearable lol
This made my day :)) TYY
i want to make sure so with necessary causes, absence of effect does not imply absence of cause. With sufficiency causes, it is true that absence of cause does not imply absence of effect. I just wanna make sure I have this right.
I know it's been 100+ lessons but this is probably the first time the sufficiency necessity clicked
LETS GOOOOOO
dude literally me lol. the second i read it i was like wait did i actually understand s/n perfectly for once without second guessing