Does this sentence contain conditionality despite lacking any universal indicators?

NotMyName

"Having an efficient, attractive subway system makes good economic sense."

EAS = efficient, attractive subway system

GES = Good economic sense

I interpret this sentence as EAS being a subset of GES. Therefore, EAS --> GES.

However, as with any sentence lacking universal indicators, there is lots of ambiguity here. But I'm not sure that squashes the conditionality. Nevertheless, in the video explanation below, JY illustrates this sentence as "GES (eas)".

I would love any input on this specific instance as well as guidance for interpreting conditionality without indicators in general. As well as the difference between "EAS --> GES" and "GES (eas)". Thanks!

https://7sage.com/lesson/attractive-subway-system-sa-question/#comment-56183

NotMyName

@JustDoIt

Cant Get Right

I believe the answer is technically no, but for the purposes of the LSAT, yes. The LSAT doesn't cut that deep on the logic, so I don't think the distinction is important within the context. I doubt you'd need to work with it in any kind of conditional chain or anything, but if it's useful to break it down in review, I think that's probably fine.

JustDoIt

I honestly still don't think it is a conditional. Even where JY indicates this as "GES (eas)," this is not necessarily a conditional statement. It is a declaration that is later used as part of a condition but it is not a condition in and of itself.

There are quite a few questions that utilize conditionality (in some sense) without using conditional indicators. (https://7sage.com/lesson/skateboarding-in-river-park-strengthen-question/) They aren't exactly common but using a general understanding, you can link things up. I guess what I am saying is some questions will have a declarative statement, then another statement that links that declarative statement to another thing/claim. Thus, the latter statement would be the conditional that contains the declarative statement, but the former isn't on its own because it is dependent on the latter's conditionality.

Sami

Hey,

So I don't think you need to worry about it because the logic does work, or at least LSAT wise. We know that having an attractive subway system makes good economic sense. So anytime that its an attractive subway system we can conclude that it makes good economic sense.

In this way, I think its fine to draw an arrow and think of it as conditional. I think in a way it also helps to do this question as well.
We know that EAS---> GES
and if it makes GES---> we should do it
Conclusion: We should do New Subway Cars.

From our two previous premise we can inference: if EAS--> We should do it
Then all we need make our conclusion true is connect this inference to our conclusion. If EAS then its necessary to have new subway cars.

NotMyName

@Sami said:
Hey,

So I don't think you need to worry about it because the logic does work, or at least LSAT wise. We know that having an attractive subway system makes good economic sense. So anytime that its an attractive subway system we can conclude that it makes good economic sense.

In this way, I think its fine to draw an arrow and think of it as conditional. I think in a way it also helps to do this question as well.
We know that EAS---> GES
and if it makes GES---> we should do it
Conclusion: We should do New Subway Cars.

From our two previous premise we can inference: if EAS--> We should do it
Then all we need make our conclusion true is connect this inference to our conclusion. If EAS then its necessary to have new subway cars.

I agree. That is exactly how I solved that problem. So while I understand that the sentence may not technically be logic, for the sake of the LSAT, it can be Lawgic. I definitely prefer using the logic chains over JY's "GES (eas)" shorthand... just helps me see the background principles better.

NotMyName

@AngusMcGillis I think we have maxed out the nested replies in the comment section because it won't let me reply to you lol.

But looking back on this question, I agree with everything Can'tGetRight, Sami, and JustDoIt say above. Strictly speaking, I don't think that statement is conditional because of the points JustDoIt made. However, for the purposes of LSAT, it's fine to use it as conditional. I think Sami and Can'tGetRight put it better than I did.

I guess what it comes down to is that the LSAT uses strict formal logic in some cases. But other times, it's a lot messier. When it's messy we can bend the hard logic rules to visualize our understanding.

AngusMcGillis

@jkatz1488 said:
@AngusMcGillis I think we have maxed out the nested replies in the comment section because it won't let me reply to you lol.

But looking back on this question, I agree with everything Can'tGetRight, Sami, and JustDoIt say above. Strictly speaking, I don't think that statement is conditional because of the points JustDoIt made. However, for the purposes of LSAT, it's fine to use it as conditional. I think Sami and Can'tGetRight put it better than I did.

I guess what it comes down to is that the LSAT uses strict formal logic in some cases. But other times, it's a lot messier. When it's messy we can bend the hard logic rules to visualize our understanding.

Ok, great! Thanks for the response and link to the discussion. This is definitely messy, and J.Y.'s explanation made it even muddier for me. But this clears things up for me, thanks!