X can be warranted only by Y

Bumblebee

Hi guys,
I was working through PT25/S3/Q7 when I read this phrase and wondered, "is it a biconditional?"

"warranted" means "sufficient", so to re-phrase the statement would be: "X can be sufficient only when Y"
X---> Y
Y-->X

Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Thank u!

(Happy Valentine's Day!)

FixedDice

Are you sure you entered the right PT # and such? PT 25, S3, Q7 is an Analytic Reasoning question that doesn't seem to have a "warranted... only" phrase.

Context notwithstanding, I think you are partially right. "X can be warranted only by Y" would be "X -> Y." I really don't think it can be Lawgicked as "Y -> X" though. Would you mind explaining your thought process?

Bumblebee

Oops! Thanks for pointing that out ahh
It is actually PT31 S3 Q7 LR!

I read the statement as saying, 'the only thing that warrants X is Y.
X-->Y

Y is described as something that warrants X.
Warrant means sufficient so I thought it also means Y---> X.
Does this make sense at all?

FixedDice

@LSATlife said:
Y is described as something that warrants X.
Warrant means sufficient so I thought it also means Y---> X.

I believe "warrant" is geared more toward necessity rather than sufficiency. So per your logic it would mean X -> Y, not the other way around.

Besides, I think you were reading too much into "warrant." If the sentence was a biconditional it would use a phrase like "but not otherwise."

Bumblebee

@FixedDice said:

@LSATlife said:
Y is described as something that warrants X.
Warrant means sufficient so I thought it also means Y---> X.

I believe "warrant" is geared more toward necessity rather than sufficiency. So per your logic it would mean X -> Y, not the other way around.

Besides, I think you were reading too much into "warrant." If the sentence was a biconditional it would use a phrase like "but not otherwise."

thanks so much @FixedDice . I read too much into it! next time i'll try to identify "but not otherwise" when determining the existence of biconditionals.