- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
@rahelaalam514 Oh my god thank you so so so much!! I think on this part
Premises
Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment ---> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally
Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Balanced Muscle Development
I diagrammed and understood as
Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Balanced Muscle Development AND Proper Alignment ---> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally
so diagramming it on paper with the split and I believed I could somehow infer from my mistaken chaining that Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally and Balanced Muscle Development. When in actuality because Maintaining a Healthy Back was determined to be Sufficient for Proper Alignment so its not the case that its a AND relationship that joins the two parts together.
Edit: I forgot to ask that when I know its not all that great to rely too heavily on Lawgic but in trying to see how these properly link up say we used your example with Proper Alignment --> Balanced Muscle Development in linking up the original argument
Premises
Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally
Sub Conclusion
Maintaining a Healthy Back ----> Balanced Muscle Development
Conclusion
Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally
So if we had identified that relationship between the Premises and the Sub Conclusion wouldn't there be many other ways we could possibly map it out that still retains the Sufficiency and Necessity Relationship of the Premises and Sub Conclusion but mean completely different things when put together? Like for example...
Version #1
Maintaining a Healthy Back --> Proper Alignment --> Balanced Muscle Development --> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally
OR
Version #2
Proper Alignment --> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally --> Maintaining a Healthy Back --> Balanced Muscle Development
I am kinda leaning toward Version #2 being wrong because the connection between Proper Alignment and Balanced Muscle development while it can be inferred from the chain that Proper Alignment --> Balanced Muscle Development it is connected in a more indirect way and that in Version #2 it isn't really connecting via Proper Alignment --> Balanced Muscle as that is only inferred and instead the Premises and Sub Conclusion are connected through Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally --> Maintaining a Healthy Back which wouldn't be correct.
99sav99sav106
How to properly analyze the relationship between the Premises and Conclusions w. Conditionals?!
LR Question Referring To: PT#J07 S#3 Q#17 (Exercising muscles in one back...)
Hey all! Hope all is well, I just have a question about how to properly analyze conditionals in Premises, Sub-Conclusions, and Conclusions? Right now I noticed that my understanding has been pretty lacking and I am not sure if I am steering myself in the right direction or not. If someone could perhaps correct my reasoning or approach that would be very much appreciated.
Premises
Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally
Sub Conclusion
Maintaining a Healthy Back ----> Balanced Muscle Development
Conclusion
Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally
So upon reading @Sami wonderful explanation here (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/9561/pt-june-2007-s3-q17-when-excercising-the-muscles) I saw that she identified a gap between the PA and MHB. While I was pouring over the relationship between the two I, perhaps falsely assumed, that Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment because after considering the Negation of it being Maintaining a Healthy Back and /Proper Alignment I reasoned that Proper Alignment was a Necessary component for Maintaining a Healthy Back...
...and while I am writing this I feel like I am making assumption upon assumption :X because right this very second I am considering whether there are varying degrees of Proper Alignment, what the hell is even this Proper Alignment, what defines Proper Alignment, would 1% of a Improper Alignment be prevent ones back from being thrown into the category of Proper Alignment?! Anyways,
because should /Proper Alignment be the case it seems hard pressed for me to say that one could claim that they are Maintaining a Healthy Back. So upon reasoning or screwing myself over I saw that because Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment I could connect up the Conditional in the Premises to the Sub Conclusion to get
Premises
Conclusion
So from the Premises I inferred that Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally and Balanced Muscle Development because they were both now connected to Maintaining a Healthy Back. So I guess with that I just equated the two ideas (I am honestly not even sure if you can do that...) and just went off looking for something that would connect either Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally or Balanced Muscle Development to Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally because it seemed to be the only gap remaining.
So then I read @Sami explanation again and under her explanation for Answer Choice: A she says...
" we know that there is a relationship between balanced muscle developed and proper alignment of back, but does the stimulus say that having a balanced muscle development is sufficient/enough to guarantee the proper back alignment? No, its says its needed but does not guarantee that it would lead to a proper back alignment. Other things can also despite having a balanced muscle development could lead someone not to have the proper alignment of back."
And now I am even more lost because I fail to see how the Stimulus says that Balanced Muscle Development is Necessary for Proper Alignment. It seems like all the Premises is doing is just explaining with the conditional (Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally) why the conditional in the Sub Conclusion is the case being (Maintaining a Healthy Back ----> Balanced Muscle Development). If we take what is contained in the Premises to be true and only question the support then wouldn't the already established connection Sami mentioned, Proper Alignment --> Balanced Muscle Development, already connect the Premises to the Sub-Conclusion because it would just be...
Premises
Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally
Conclusion
Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally
because if we accept the Premises as true cant we chain up the other conditions associated with it which would basically mean that the first gap mentioned by Sami being between Proper Alignment and Maintaining a Healthy Back is essentially nonexistent?
My apologies for the long post I am just concerned with how I feel like I arrived at the correct answer with some fucking bizarre reasoning that I cant even fully comprehend. Any help or clarification would be very much appreciated! Thanks again. I need a damn drink.
Is there a difference between what one BELIEVES to be the actual consequences vs. what in REALITY the actual consequences are? Aren't we told that one's beliefs have no bearing on telling us what is true or not in reality so I am kinda confused on whether the author's belief can be counted as an actual consequence.
#help
For B dont we only know what the author speculates/believes to be the actual consequences if they gov didnt knock it down?
@drbrown2259 Ah i see thank you so much for the clarification. I just thought that because it was A --> B AND C that it requires that both the Necessary Conditions (B and C) be negated to get /A.
Hi all!
I just have a question regrading And + Or in the SC and NC and what happens when you Satisfy the SC through Valid Argument Form #1 and Deny the NC through Valid Argument Form #2. Here is where my thinking is at right now if any of you can correct me please do!!
Or in the Sufficient Condition
Valid Argument Form #1: Satisfying the Sufficient Condition
A or B --> C
Because it is an or statement there are three ways that can you can possibly satisfy the Sufficient Condition and conclude C.
Valid Argument Form #2: Denying the Necessary Condition
A or B --> C
When you deny the Necessary Condition by saying /C you can end up with 3 possibilities.
And in the Necessary Condition
Valid Argument Form #2: Denying the Sufficient Condition
A --> B and C
When you say /B and /C you conclude /A because B and C are jointly necessary they must both be denied.
@eugenewrotethis726 Thank you so much and rearranging the sentence was something that definitely didn't think of!
"Jack must be diligent and smart because without these traits he is doomed to fail"
Meaning: If Jack is not diligent or smart then it guarantees he will fail.
As this is a OR statement Jack can be the following below to trigger him Failing
Meaning: If Jack doesn't fail then he must be both Diligent and Smart.
I have been trying to make up more difficult sentences to diagram into lawgic to help my understanding but have been a bit confused with this. Would really appreciate it if someone can correct me if I have messed up in anyway thank you so much in advance!
A bit confusing because I chose E because I was not provided any results of the participants in the 1st group. In my opinion, seems kinda a big assumption to say that just because Group 1 underperformed compared to Group 2 at the 1-month mark that they will not perform better than Group 2 at the 1-year mark. Then read the Question Stem again and it says "some support" so I guess just showing the results of Group 2 at the 1-year mark constitutes "SOME" support.
Slow down! At least that is what helped for me. It got so frustrating to the point where I simply had to keep on reminding me to slow down and actually take my time by writing out my reasons for why I am picking or not picking an answer choice. I found that once I done this, while I may only get through only a handful of questions a day, my understanding from actually writing out my reasoning for each answer choice allowed me to better evaluate my reasoning and make any necessary adjustments to it when watching the videos. Getting the answer right is maybe one thing but I don't think it will help you at all in the long run if you are not getting the answer right with correct reasoning.
Congrats! Seeing these posts really gives me hope and also I am so glad that we have such a supportive community here!
I reviewed it and saw that just because you can be eligible to vote doesn't mean that you actually go out and vote.
#help
Wouldnt this also be considered a Flase DIchotomy? Because there is not much of clear binary cut between "rational argument" and "non rational appeal to emotion"?
is it incorrect to say that people living at ginas house and people at ginas house are two different groups that cannot be combined?
It seems like the author is only looking at one specific point in chemistry while overlooking other parts of its life like the middle or present. It describes the origin (beginnings) of chemistry as blemished which I took it to be pretty crappy. Then I asked myself "how do you know if something is crappy?" and "is looking at only a specific point instead of the entire lifetime of something really fair when assessing it for scientific value?".
To the first I answered by saying that you dont know if something is blemished if you dont have something else to compare it to. Here being chemistry's current theories. To the second I said that it definitely wasn't fair to assess something by only looking at one point. I dont even know how the hell I ended up at B. My reasoning is so messed up that I think its just luck at this point.
When the argument says "formal instruction is often a part of good musical education" doesn't it leave open the possibility that it isnt because it isn't definitive?
#help (Added by Admin)
@akikookmt881 And that was one of my major problems that I had with Blueprint. It seemed like they took way too long to get to the actual point across when with 7sage its just direct as can be.
Also I found that when I was freaking out over trying to score high on the LSAT...the constant lame jokes and attempts at humor just ended pissing me off more than helping. But also thank you so much Notmyname for doing this!
Hell yes!