How to tell when a conditional statement is a hypothetical/bizaro world?

youbbyun

hey all,

so i did 59.3.19

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-19/

in it there's a conditional statement that's actually a hypothetical. we don't actually know if it's true.

the question hinges on whether you realize that condition statement is a hypothetical.

in general, when we see conditional statements, how do we distinguish if it's a hypothetical or if we just accept it as true/fact/reality?

thanks!

Cant Get Right

This is a really interesting question. Both the sufficient and necessary conditions are themselves conditional statements, and that unique structure is at the core of your question.

So here's how this should be diagrammed:

(Understanding ---> Dictionary definition) ---> (Necessary: Understanding ---> Words in definition)

So more simply, the structure is:

( A ---> B ) ---> ( A ---> C )

Remember PEMDAS? The parentheses come first making the the primary relationship the arrow in the middle.

How do we trigger the sufficient here? Well, what is the sufficient? It's the relationship between A and B. We're saying that if understanding words and knowing dictionary definitions have this particular relationship, then understanding words and understanding words in definitions have this particular relationship. If it helps, think of the arrows (which represents the relationship) as the real sufficient and necessary terms.

Does that help make sense of this?

NotMyName

I remember that question. It's tricky.

Every sufficient condition is a hypothetical, though. I think what this question hinges on is identifying that the sufficient condition is in fact a conditional statement containing its own sufficient and necessary conditions. The stimulus itself doesn't allow us to conclude anything though, and since this is a MBT, the premises must provide additional premises for us to reach some valid conclusion. E does that.

(UW->KDD) -> (UW->UWiDD)
B->/KDD

B<-some->UW <--(This was provided by AC E)

B -> (UW<-some->/KDD)

Not(UW->KDD)

UW = Understand word
KDD = Know dictionary definition
UWiDD = Understand every word in the dictionary definition
B = Babies

youbbyun

@NotMyName
@"Cant Get Right"
thank you! that was very helpful!

Bamboosprout

@username_hello , this is such a great catch. More people should see this question. Basically anyone who isn't a philosophy student or hasn't studied beyond intro-level formal logic will not be able to understand this question. And honestly, JY does a fairly inadequate job of explaining the logic behind it. In fact, he basically avoids the logic behind it and chooses to use an analogy explanation: the bizarro world explanation. I find this method of explaining this question insufficient =(.

The key is to remember that none of the condition are triggered in the stimulus, and in the answer choices, the conditions aren't necessarily triggered either. They are hypothetical. Only answer choice A can be applied to the stimulus in some way, while BCDE all act to deny the sufficient condition in the stimulus. B does nothing after denying the condition; C and D are irrelevant to knowing the dictionary definition and logically invalid; E is the only one that is logically valid, and relevant to the conclusion.

The thing that bothers me also is that the stimulus' premise assumes its conclusion. I think that the babies not knowing the dictionary definition is a premise, and must be considered a premise if E is to be correct, but doesn't that automatically guarantee that some people don't know the dictionary definition? If that is the case, doesn't any of the answer choices technically make the argument valid?

Bamboosprout

@NotMyName said:

Great technical explanation!