"It is" as a logical indicator

TheDeterminedC

I just finished a PT that made use twice of "it is," in english to convey logic, in one SA question. This indicator is not in the CC and honestly, thinking about if the word following "it is" was necessary or sufficient slowed me down drastically.

"it is" is a group TWO indicator. This might be intuitive for most people but it definitely was not for me. My uncertainty was compounded when the context of the statement was "It is imprudent to appear prudent." Of course, finding the conditionality is a lot easier when the statement is "it is good to go outside," but I wanted to share what I have learned in hopes that others will not be thrown off if you happen to come across this indicator in the future!

mynameisjeff

Sorry, I'm a bit confused still. Could you explain alittle more? sorry

TheDeterminedC

@TTurner24 Don't be sorry! I could have explained more fully.

To start off, in the context of that hard SA question that made me write this, the conclusion stated:

  "It's imprudent to appear prudent." 

Knowing this is SA territory, I know for a fact I need to be linking elements together to fill the gap. But what made me pause and think for maybe 15-20 seconds during a timed go was if the idea of "appearing prudent" was the necessary condition or if it was "Imprudent." This 15-20 seconds is so much damn time to just be thinking about what idea goes on which side---something that really should be done without thinking.

I sat down puzzled where I made examples and I saw a trend of "it is" introducing necessary conditions. For instance, it is dangerous to drive intoxicated. This translates to if one drives intoxicated, it will be dangerous. Notice how "it is" introduced dangerous and is thus the necessary condition. Having these conditions reversed would mean something entirely different.

This example might seem elementary. But, when I was faced with "It's imprudent to appear prudent" it just stumped me. Funny thing is, these two statements work exactly the same logically, where they only differ on the subject matter.

Here is my rendition of a SA question:

If (F) then they like (E).
If one is seen as (A) then they surely will be (B).
Therefore, it's (C) to be (A).

In this example the premises are 1) F -----> E 2) A -----> B
Now the conclusion and also where I got confused the first time around. Is C the sufficient or necessary condition? Now that I figured out "it is" is a group two indicator, C is the necessary condition since it was the idea after "it's."
The conclusion is then diagrammed as A -----> C.
We have A -----> B as a premise and A -----> C as the conclusion.

All we are missing now is B ------> C, which also could be stated as "it is C to be B."

Hopefully this cleared up some confusion.

JustDoIt

Just a heads up, there are some questions, especially in the more recent tests, that use lawgic differently than the CC does. It requires a more inituitive and natural mindset. It is likely that you got bogged down trying to determine which type of indicator to use.

However, I would make the argument that instead of using "it is" as a logic indicator, "to" makes more sense. For example: To appear prudent, it is imprudent; To be a doctor, it is required to attend medical school. To be A, it is also true that you become B.

In all of these, "to" could be argued to be a group 1 indicator. However, I would emphasize doing what is natural and intuitive. That's how you learn: when you no longer feel like you are contorting your mindset but instead it becomes a natural way of thinking.

TheDeterminedC

@JustDoIt Fantastic pick up there with the "to." I have to totally agree with you. Most of the time I do see the logic language as fluid English for me. But, I really have to adopt this natural approach when stuff hits the fan. I believe that when I froze during the timed portion, rather then just seeing what makes sense, I fell back on strict formulaic fundamentals that, in a way, let me down. I had a mini freak out because 1) I had no idea what prudent even meant and 2) there were no CC indicators. If I had an idea of the context or if there were indicators, it would have not been a problem. Like you said though, I was actually contorting my mindset and hurt me a immense amount on subsequent questions as well. I'm glad I had the chance to learn from this bad experience so I can fix it for next time.

In the future, I will try to just relax, trust my own experience and just use a common-sense understanding of what is in front of me.

Thanks for the tips, they are much appreciated!