Miguel, you are on the right track, but your last post seems to suggest that you're translating English into conditional logic incorrectly.
Christian Wayne explains the contrapositive perfectly. Just to clean it up into a few lines:
"No candy is bitter".
Candy ----> NOT Bitter
The contrapositive is: Bitter ----> NOT candy.
So if a substance is bitter, you know that it cannot possibly be candy.
Now, for the part of your post that I'm really concerned about:
NO, you CANNOT have a candy that is bitter, because of the definition of necessity. If the sufficient condition is met, the necessary will ALWAYS follow. Conditional arrows don't mess around.
Do you see what I mean? Please follow up! You are right on the brink of understanding a huge concept that the LSAT tests.
NOT (A->B) simply means that this conditional relationship is not true of our world. The way in which this is expressed is that A occurs without B occurring. So we'd need to go out in our world and observe A and /B. That proves that A does not lead to B. So A and /B occurring proves NOT (A->B).
No candy is bitter is a regular conditional statement. If i have a candy, i know it isn't bitter.
C->/B.
Concurrently, the contrapositive expresses the idea that if i have something bitter, i know it cannot be candy:
B->/C.
(A--->B) ---> C means that if the conditional relationship of A->B is true, than C occurs. If C fails to occur, then we know that the conditional relationship of A->B is not true. Be careful here though; that doesn't means A and /B both MUST occur. It just means that A doesn't necessarily lead to B. It means that i need to be able to have A and /B occur concurrently.
JY explains this all in Preptest 42 Section 2 Question 19.
So if I had this statement: No candy is bitter. NO(C-->B) meaning C-->/B could that translate to C and /B. You can have candy and it not be bitter. Is that right? I think I am over thinking it a lot...
In (A--->B) ---> C. Couldn't the contrapositive just be
/C---> A--->/B. I am not getting how it gets to /C---> A and /B.
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
4 comments
Miguel, you are on the right track, but your last post seems to suggest that you're translating English into conditional logic incorrectly.
Christian Wayne explains the contrapositive perfectly. Just to clean it up into a few lines:
"No candy is bitter".
Candy ----> NOT Bitter
The contrapositive is: Bitter ----> NOT candy.
So if a substance is bitter, you know that it cannot possibly be candy.
Now, for the part of your post that I'm really concerned about:
NO, you CANNOT have a candy that is bitter, because of the definition of necessity. If the sufficient condition is met, the necessary will ALWAYS follow. Conditional arrows don't mess around.
Do you see what I mean? Please follow up! You are right on the brink of understanding a huge concept that the LSAT tests.
NOT (A->B) simply means that this conditional relationship is not true of our world. The way in which this is expressed is that A occurs without B occurring. So we'd need to go out in our world and observe A and /B. That proves that A does not lead to B. So A and /B occurring proves NOT (A->B).
No candy is bitter is a regular conditional statement. If i have a candy, i know it isn't bitter.
C->/B.
Concurrently, the contrapositive expresses the idea that if i have something bitter, i know it cannot be candy:
B->/C.
(A--->B) ---> C means that if the conditional relationship of A->B is true, than C occurs. If C fails to occur, then we know that the conditional relationship of A->B is not true. Be careful here though; that doesn't means A and /B both MUST occur. It just means that A doesn't necessarily lead to B. It means that i need to be able to have A and /B occur concurrently.
JY explains this all in Preptest 42 Section 2 Question 19.
So if I had this statement: No candy is bitter. NO(C-->B) meaning C-->/B could that translate to C and /B. You can have candy and it not be bitter. Is that right? I think I am over thinking it a lot...
In (A--->B) ---> C. Couldn't the contrapositive just be
/C---> A--->/B. I am not getting how it gets to /C---> A and /B.