if A --> B, then can I say if A is likely to happen, then B will likely to happen?

LSATSurvivor

For example,

PT 43 S2 Q10

I am trying to examine the stimulus with only logic and try to make sense of AC A.

Acceptance of criticism requires positive response.

A -> PS

Students are more likely to learn from criticism that they are more likely to respond positively. (I paraphrased it)

More likely PS --> More likely to L

SO, can I infer from the above that students are more likely to accept criticism only when students are more likely to respond positively?

More likely A --> More likely PS

becasue

A-->More likely A. One will accept that one criticism only when one is likely to accept that one criticism.

Assuming that one is logical and not some kind of robot programed with random allgorithem.

The same goes with PS. PS --> More likely PS. One will respond positively to the criticism only when one is likely to respond positively to the criticism.

If we chain up the inferrences, we get

A-->More likely A --> PS--> More likely PS--> More likely to L.

And because of the inferrences made above, we can say that one is more likely to learn from criticism when they are more likely to accept the criticism.

A) Students are more likely to learn from crticism that they accept than from crticism they do not accept.

Paraphrase: If one accept a criticism, then one is more likely to learn from it.

A--> More likely to L

if we negate this, then A--> NOT more likely to L. It will contradict with our argument. Therefore, this assumption is necessary.

Another NA I can think of is A->L. When one accept the criticism, one will learn from the criticism.

Please correct me because I am 80% not confident with what I wrote here.

Sami

@yuan1step said:
For example,

PT 43 S2 Q10

I am trying to examine the stimulus with only logic and try to make sense of AC A.

Acceptance of criticism requires positive response.

A -> PS

Students are more likely to learn from criticism that they are more likely to respond positively. (I paraphrased it)

More likely PS --> More likely to L

SO, can I infer from the above that students are more likely to accept criticism only when students are more likely to respond positively?

I think you are conflating what statements you can infer things from. Inference have to come from the premises and conclusion is a result of those inferences from premises.

If I am understanding you correctly you are combining the conclusion - more like to learn- with the premises - respond positively- to draw an inference.

It has to be the other way around. You want to ask based on your premises, how did the author infer the conclusion.

Premise 1:

Human vs Computer
Response is more positive with human.

So humans win. You don't want to think that every response when its human is positive or every response when its a computer is negative. Just that the chances of humans response being positive is higher.

Premise 2:
Acceptance of criticism -----> positive response

So before we go into our conclusion, what's the inference we can draw based on these two premises?

If negative criticism generated by humans has a more likely chance of having positive response than when being generated by computers, we can infer that:

There is a higher chance that the requirement for acceptance of criticism will be met when its being by humans than computers. So we can infer that its more likely (not saying we are sure) that criticism will be accepted when the critic is human than computer.

But what do we end up concluding?

Students are more likely to LEARN from criticism by humans than computers!

But our premises only allowed us to conclude that its more likely that criticism will be ACCEPTED by humans than computers.

So between our premises and conclusion we have a gap. We could only infer about the likelihood of ACCEPTANCE in premises but we are concluding about likelihood of students LEARNING in the conclusion. So its necessary than when we are more likely to accept criticism we are more likely to learn from it.

That's what answer choice A is getting at.

Let me know if this helped.

goingfor99th

I remember an LR question on my official exam (June '17, which is PT81 I believe) that played on conditional statements and likelihood. If I'm not mistaken, the question actually allowed me to conclude that a standard conditional argument can be paralleled by a conditional argument that incorporates likelihood into its terms.

I will take a look when I get home.

Sami

@goingfor99th said:
I remember an LR question on my official exam (June '17, which is PT81 I believe) that played on conditional statements and likelihood. If I'm not mistaken, the question actually allowed me to conclude that a standard conditional argument can be paralleled by a conditional argument that incorporates likelihood into its terms.

I will take a look when I get home.

That's interesting and I love finding similar arguments. But PT81 is still a fresh take for me .

goingfor99th

@Sami said:

@goingfor99th said:
I remember an LR question on my official exam (June '17, which is PT81 I believe) that played on conditional statements and likelihood. If I'm not mistaken, the question actually allowed me to conclude that a standard conditional argument can be paralleled by a conditional argument that incorporates likelihood into its terms.

I will take a look when I get home.

That's interesting and I love finding similar arguments. But PT81 is still a fresh take for me .

Whoops! My bad! Didn't mean to spoil it. :[