"Provided" necessary or sufficient condition?

niki2018

Hi,
I was wondering if "provided that" is a necessary or sufficient assumption indicator? (Please see below)

You will appreciate cultural differences "provided" that you reflect on your own civilization.

How about "contingent on", "assuming that", "as long as"?

Thanks

LogicallyImpaired

Take this with a grain of salt - I'm a beginner with this sort of stuff - but when I hear 'provided,' it seems to serve the same function as would 'if.' The statement you're referring to would bear the same effect with that substitution made: "You will appreciate cultural differences if you reflect on your own civilization."

So I'd say it's sufficient. At least in this context. I'll leave those other three to others so as not to lead you too far astray! Happy studying!

Edit: thinking this through a bit more... 'provided' be more akin to 'only if,' which of course would indicate a necessary condition. Geez. Sorry for any confusion, hopefully someone who's more certain will comment soon!

Tim Hortons

This is an interesting one. I don't know if I would be inclined to view a sentence with "provided that" as a conditional, but then again, this kind of brings to light the vast scope of sufficiency and necessity.

In my opinion, I view "provided that" as a qualification, meaning "on the condition that".

Examples:
You may drive your Ford Mustang provided that you have a license.
You may write the LSAT provided that you register for it with LSAC.

I think, per viewing it as a qualification, "provided that" indicates the necessary condition since the qualification is required (so, I agree with @LogicallyImpaired!).

Examples:
Driving your Ford Mustang requires you to have a license.
If you're driving your Mustang, you must have a license.
Writing the LSAT requires that you register for it with LSAC.
If you write the LSAT, you must have registered for it with LSAC.

To build on this further: if you have your license, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're driving your Mustang. You could be driving your friend's Honda, or your dad's Porsche. But, if you're driving your Mustang, it's guaranteed that you got your license. Likewise, if you registered with LSAC, it doesn't necessarily mean you're writing your LSAT. You could sleep in the day-of (a fear of mine, mind you) or you could have won the lottery that morning and never looked back! But, if you're writing your LSAT, then it's guaranteed that you registered with LSAC (unless there's some other way I don't know about...).

Some food for thought. Interested to know what others think.

eRetaker

Hi @niki2018, I had the exact same issue come up during the June 2018 LSAT and luckily caught my mistake before finishing the section. I originally had it as a necessary condition but it is indeed a sufficient condition. Check out question 19 on PT84's first LR section about studying history and it will hopefully make more sense.

samantha.ashley92

To me, it seems like a reasonable substitute for “if”— making it sufficient. I could be wrong, but I think that it could also be a substitute for “only if” in a different context.

intellectualplastic

I dug up this thread because of the June 2018 LR question, as @eRetaker mentioned.

Can "provided that" be safely assumed to always be a group 1, sufficient assumption indicator just because LSAC used it this way once? I don't want to be fooled if it appears again.

If it's based on context, how can we whether it's indicating a SA or NA?

If it's strictly group one, why?

Update:

After thinking about @"Tim Hortons"'s example, I might have found the answer:

I don't think "You may drive your Ford Mustang provided that you have a license" is actually picking out a NA.

While it's true that you do require a license to drive the car irl, the statement can still be read as picking out a SA:

"You may drive your Ford Mustang provided that you have a license."

So, having the license is sufficient (in this imaginary case) for granting you the permission and ability to drive the mustang whenever you wish.

Even if you're driving a Honda at the moment, you still may drive the mustang (as in, you're still allowed to drive it), because you've fulfilled the sufficient condition - you have the license.

Another way of thinking about this is with JY's notion of "carvouts." So, you may drive the mustang whenever you wish, unless you don't have a license. If you have a license, you may drive the mustang whenever you wish.

Conclusion: I'm pretty confident "provided that" is a group 1 indicator.

studyingandrestudying

In a lot of cases it's like saying IF.

Victoria.Bordignon

And thinking about it logically in the form of what happens first?