Structure of arguments.

alumivacui

Hey everyone, I was looking for some guidance from the "more experienced" users of the website. Is it worth learning the logical structures of arguments? Rather, perhaps I mean to say, identify the structure of the argument."

If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

I understand how understanding structure may aid in identifying the validity of the argument, but does anyone "actually" find themselves identifying the argument structure for anything else?

I'd like to also extend my question to fallacies as well.

Has anyone found the automatisation of these useful in their studies for the LSAT. . . or . . . believe they would have been useful to know while actually writing the test?

Regards,
Lucas

LastLSAT

While the example you've given is clearly the most fundamental form of conditional logic you will encounter, I think you'll find that it's well worth it to invest in making the more complex formal logic phrases seem like second nature too. It gets way more complicated than if/then statements, and being extremely familiar with contra-positives, validity, existential and universal quantifiers, etc. will not only be worth it but also necessary to your LSAT success.

There is probably no better time investment you can make in the LSAT than studying these cookie cutter phrases so you can distill a paragraph of absolute nonsense in a complex LR MBT/MBF/MSS/Parallel Flaw/Parallel Reasoning stimulus or LG with a ton of overlapping complex conditional rules into a simple chain of easy to read representations.

I definitely found that not having to think about how to diagram this sort of language (after long, long hours of drilling formal logic questions) saved me at least five minutes on most LG and LR sections on PTs and the real test—the exact boost I needed to achieve my goal score.

paulmv.benthem

@alumivacui said:
Has anyone found the automatisation of these useful in their studies for the LSAT. . . or . . . believe they would have been useful to know while actually writing the test?

The questions you raise is a valuable one, because all too often when studying for this test we make the mistake of sensing that something is intuitive and, as a result, we never rigorously internalize it. I would agree with @LastLSAT , the structure you indicate is pretty straightforward, and so intentionally rehearsing it probably isn't going to make you many gains. However, for some of the more complex argument structures [ not(/P --> G) --> (G --> /C); C, etc..), doing up some flashcards of logical indicators and their logical translations has been one of the best things I've done for LR. For instance, being able to quickly diagram a statement that employs an "unless" structure, can save you plenty of time in light of how often it is used.

JustDoIt

Similar to what is stated above, I think it is 100% worth it to understand structure. It is certainly foundational. But the reason I believe that it is worth it is because these patterns repeat themselves over and over again. Like they are all the same. Literally. Even on the newer PTs, sure they are little more wonky but at the end of the day, the structure is still the exact same. LSAC is lazy and instead of reinventing the wheel, they just plug new terms in.