Self-study
Looking for advice from folks on when they diagram a question (if you diagram at all) and when you don't. I've been studying Condr questions a lot recently and some seem impossible without writing formal logic down. However, I've also fallen into the trap of forcing formal logic into questions that don't need it, and therefore making the question harder to solve. PT117.s3.q9 is an example. What do people do about this?
6
5 comments
For PT117.s3.q9 specifically, I don't think you need to write anything down, as the question is not actually asking you to identify conditional reasoning explicitly.
But as for your broader question: I diagrammed more when I first started prepping for the LSAT but have diagrammed less and less with time, such that now I diagram only once or twice per LR section (I'm sure others differ in this). A lot of times, you can identify the correct answer to, say, a sufficient assumption conditional reasoning question by noticing what term is in the conclusion but not in the premises...your answer will need to present this missing term. Usually, that narrows you down to 1 or 2 ACs. From there, you just need to make sure that the term is on the correct side of the arrow (i.e. sufficient condition or necessary condition). That can often be done without needing to write anything down.
All that to say, I try to push against the gut instinct to diagram Conditional reasoning whenever I see it (since that's very time-intensive). Instead, I try to internalize the rules for conditional indicators (especially "unless," "only if," "only," "no") so that I can quickly translate those in my head when needed. Sometimes, I do end up needing to write something down, but I try to translate in my head first.
Not sure if that helps, but that's sort of how I think about this!
@jwn1060 Thanks so much! That is pretty helpful. I think I'll still diagram for the "conclusion follows logically if," questions, but perhaps I won't have to one day.
@jwn1060 Would you mind giving an example of "you can identify the correct answer to, say, a sufficient assumption conditional reasoning question by noticing what term is in the conclusion but not in the premises"? Thank you so much for your post too! I am going to try and apply this technique.
@PatrickHallinan Sure, take PT101.S2.Q21 as an example. The question stem indicates this is a SA question, and the stimulus (and a quick glance at the answer choices) tells us this involves some conditional reasoning. So let's start by reading the argument and spotting the flaw.
The argument: There should be no legal prohibition against gambling. Why? Because gambling laws are impossible to enforce, and a law that isn't effective shouldn't be a law. We can see that there is a gap between "impossible to enforce" and "isn't effective"...those aren't the same thing!
So we need an answer that connects "impossible to enforce" and "isn't effective."
Looking through the answer choices, only (A) and (B) deal with effectiveness and enforceability. To choose between them, I use my Lawgic translations (knowing that I need to guarantee /enforceable --> /effective), leaving (A), the correct answer.
To make the translation on (A) more explicit (since it's a bit convoluted): "No effective law is unenforceable." That means that an effective law is not unenforceable (i.e. is enforceable), or effective --> enforceable. The contrapositive is /enforceable --> /effective, exactly what we needed.
@jwn1060 Thank you so much for taking the time to write that! That really helped!