How can I get better at translating conditional logic arguments!?

TheBatman

Damn... I was doing PT23 S2 Q9, and have no idea to connect and translate the words.

If I were to look in the question bank, how do I separate the conditional logic LR questions from the other ones. I can't seem to find it in the categories.

It's hard for me to explain what my problem is, but I hope someone understands. It's not the logic I am having problems with, it's translating logic from words!!! After looking at the process and answer, I found that some words and statements were the different in the argument, and I treated them as same variables!

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, here is the logic translation text in order, with quotations, and answer process of question PT23 S2 Q9 :

ARGUMENT: Every action has consequences, and among the consequences of any action are other actions. And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good, but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible.

every action has a consequences

Action --> consequence (okay I got that part)

And among the consequences of any action are other actions

consequences --> action (what? How is "other actions" the same as "every action," it doesn't like they are talking about a different category)

And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good

Know if action good --> know if consequences are good (okay, got that part)

but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible

NOT knowing the future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible (Okay, I see how this we done)

Now the answer I was reading goes and chains the rest of the answer like this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

MY PROBLEM #1: I can't see how a contrapositive of Know if action good --> know if consequences are good can turn into NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good (this was done to chain up the statements, and I don't the how the heck these statements are the same).

MY PROBLEM #2: the answer chains up conclusion with a chain of three, and I don't understand how:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

To me, that to me cuts into the other conditional statements.

How do these two statements below combine into one conditional chain? What rule allows this!?

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good

NOT know if future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible

According to the answer, both statements above combine to this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible?

BinghamtonDave

I see what it is you are saying here. For this particular question, we are not only going have to link up the conditionals correctly, but we are going to have to know how the words interact with each other, essentially, as I see it: in reality. As I see it, the core of this question is this:

If we know whether an action is good then we know whether its consequences are good
Consequence here is defined as an effect.

Our next premise tells us that we cannot know the future, which means we cannot know the effects events will have because these effects take place in the future. If we cannot know the future then we fail the necessary condition of the conditional above: we cannot know that the consequences are good.

Failing the necessary condition of the above conditional allows us to conclude "we don't know whether an action is good."

Here is where our true test of active reading comes into play: instead of concluding what we could conclude from the knowledge that we cannot know the future, we instead conclude that "good actions are impossible."

Good actions are impossible is a different concept from "we cannot know whether an action is good." Linking up these pieces, the argument seems to be saying implicitly that if we cannot know whether an action is good then the good actions are impossible.

In other words, knowing an action is good is necessary for a good action to be possible.

Abstract tips for solving this problem:
-always attempt to link up terms, in not only familiar terms, but also in the meaning of the words (secondary).
-Always read really close because the LSAT will often attempt to equate terms and concepts that are different, our job is to catch them in this sloppy reasoning.
-when searching for what is colloquially called the "link" in an argument, formulate both what that link is and what the contrapositive is.

I hope this helps, any further questions don't hesitate to reach out
David

TheBatman

@BinghamtonDave

David! Thank you for helping me. Your explanation was great, and it cleared a lot up for me, but I am still trying to wrap my head on the whole idea.

For now, I have a question about the first sentence:

Every action has consequences, and among the consequences of any action are other actions.

How is "Every action" the same term as "other actions?" I feel that when the argument says "other actions," the argument talking about a different subsect of actions within "every actions." So, it can't be the same thing.

According to the right answer, the argument translates to this:
Action --> consequence
consequences --> action

My problem is I wrongfully translated that first sentence to:
Action --> consequence --> other actions

I still don't see how How is "Every action" the same term as "other actions." You're advice is great, but was wondering if there are other pointers you may have to tackle this problem I have.

This is common for me to make these types of mistakes.

TheBatman

Oh, I figured it out. I made a mistake in reading the passage. Thanks.