Subscription pricing
Which PTs does the drill feature in the Core Curriculum v2 pull from? And is there a way to limit which PTs are used?
PT Questions
bmchap186
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
bmchap186
Wednesday, Jul 07 2021
Yes, very slow. Some problem sets will not even load. Not fixed yet.
bmchap186
Saturday, May 06 2023
Given that your name is likely Dylan Karmorris, I would report.
@ said:
@ " said:
Review what lesson this type of problem this is from. It is giving an example of flawed reasoning. You left out the part where my car needs gas to run. (assuming we found this prompt in the same place.)
Thanks for the response!
It seems you found the example. Yes, it is giving an example of flawed reasoning. And yes, I did leave out the part at the very beginning. The passage, in its entirety, reads: "My car needs gas in order to run. Therefore, if I put some gas in the tank, my car will run."
So does the first part, "My car needs gas in order to run" change things so significantly that the IF statement can no longer be counted upon to introduce a sufficient condition?
A 1:1 comparison would be if the other example read: "You need to study in order to pass the LSAT. Therefore, if you study, you will beat the LSAT." Here, with the first statement preceding the second, we would then write the rule as B -> S instead of S -> B ? That doesn't seem right to me.
When you say "change things so significantly," I don't think you're thinking about it in the right way. "If" always introduces the sufficient condition. The statement "my car needs gas in order to run" -- by virtue of the logical indicator "needs" -- proposes that gas is a necessary condition for the car's ability to run. The statement that "if I put some gas in the tank, my car will run" is an entirely different statement that cannot be inferred from the previous statement. It could be independently true, but that is irrelevant for the purpose of this question; it proposes a different relationship between gas and the car's ability to run. But again, the point is that gas being sufficient cannot be inferred from the statement that gas is necessary.