I thought through an example that shows how/why 2+ necessary conditions joined via conjunction are independently necessary, as the lesson states. Maybe it'll help:
Example statement: "I am happy only if my team wins and I score."
In lawgic: H → TW + IS, as "only if" is a Group 2, necessary condition indicator
The contrapositives would be:
/TW → /H, or more elaborately, /TW + IS → /H (Even if I do score, as long as the team loses, I am not happy)
/IS → /H, or more elaborately, TW + /IS → /H (Even if the team wins, if I do not score, I am not happy [selfish, lol!])
And together these both also imply, /TW + /IS → /H (If the team loses and I do not score, I'm definitely not happy)
So we can say the two necessary conditions are "independently necessary" overall, because as long as one fails in the contrapositive, then the sufficient condition also fails.
Is this...right??
#feedback
9
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!
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.
I thought through an example that shows how/why 2+ necessary conditions joined via conjunction are independently necessary, as the lesson states. Maybe it'll help:
Example statement: "I am happy only if my team wins and I score."
In lawgic: H → TW + IS, as "only if" is a Group 2, necessary condition indicator
The contrapositives would be:
/TW → /H, or more elaborately, /TW + IS → /H (Even if I do score, as long as the team loses, I am not happy)
/IS → /H, or more elaborately, TW + /IS → /H (Even if the team wins, if I do not score, I am not happy [selfish, lol!])
And together these both also imply, /TW + /IS → /H (If the team loses and I do not score, I'm definitely not happy)
So we can say the two necessary conditions are "independently necessary" overall, because as long as one fails in the contrapositive, then the sufficient condition also fails.
Is this...right??
#feedback