"Is" group 2 indicator?

aszane21

Can "is" be a group 2 indicator like "must"? E.g. X is Y = X->Y

JY seems to treat it as such in 60.1.17

hopefulling

'is' and 'are' are more like the arrow connecting the conditional relationship. So, yeah, you could think of it as a Group 2 (necessary) indicator, but it might be safer to think of it as just the arrow - since if you see it in a causal or non-conditional relationship, you wouldn't want to 'mis-identify' if. I have it noted as being in a "miscellaneous" group. Must, on the other hand, if in a stimulus, would consistently refer to a conditional relationship. It's explicit, not implicit.

• (John) is (pregnant) = J → P (if I'm John, then I'm pregnant). Mostly used as a translation tool when no indicators are present.

(Although, as I"m trying to think of counter-examples in my head, everything I think of is in a conditional relationship!! - I can't think of an 'is/are' relationship that isn't in a conditional relationship: (the buildings are ugly), (Person is out running), etc - gah!! - but I don't know if I'm just constructing too simple of relationships??!)

• I don't know if you caught this (sorry if I"m repeating something you're already aware of!), but as noted in the CC lesson(s), is/are (as well as 'is required,' 'is essential,' etc) denote/are predicates. They point to their subjects and say that those subjects are something (essential, required, necessary, etc). And that their subject is a necessary condition. IS/ARE imply (they're the 'middle men' setting up a possible relationship), where as the other Group 2 indicators are very explicit.

lexxx745

This dog is the color black.

You cant say D-->B. That would mean all dogs are black.

So depends how you use the is.

hopefulling

@lexxx745
Just curious, but, for your example, wouldn't the full subject be: "this dog" for which, all instances of "this dog" are black? D(t) → B ??? Which is correct to say. And that to tie back to all dogs is a distraction/irrelevant, since just one dog is being talked about ???

(Knowing of course, and totally off-topic here, that to project out from a specific instance to a general conclusion commits an error of illicit transference (composition))

hopjetea

is this the part you mention
"even this kind of sacrifice is a form of altruism ..." YUP.
THIS TYPE OF sacrifice --> FORM OF Altruism

hopjetea

@hopefulling
YES

lexxx745

@hopefulling said:
@lexxx745
Just curious, but, for your example, wouldn't the full subject be: "this dog" for which, all instances of "this dog" are black? D(t) → B ??? Which is correct to say. And that to tie back to all dogs is a distraction/irrelevant, since just one dog is being talked about ???

(Knowing of course, and totally off-topic here, that to project out from a specific instance to a general conclusion commits an error of illicit transference (composition))

Yeah so if its just this dog then yes

For sake of diagramming it though, i mention it to just not get confused

hopefulling

@lexxx745 OK, that makes so much sense now, thanks for explaining!!

LOWERCASE EVERYTHING

context matters, and i wouldn't always treat "is" as a group 2 indicator like "must."

for instance, "a prime example of a civil rights activist is martin luther king jr."
you can't diagram this as "civil rights activist -> martin luther king jr."
i'd diagram this as "martin luther king jr. -> civil rights activist"

another example: "the reason that yale accepted me is the 180 lsat score on file."
this is actually a causal statement, and you should not diagram this as "acceptance to yale -> 180 lsat score on file"

canihazJD

@"LOWERCASE EVERYTHING" said:
context matters, and i wouldn't always treat "is" as a group 2 indicator like "must."

for instance, "a prime example of a civil rights activist is martin luther king jr."
you can't diagram this as "civil rights activist -> martin luther king jr."
i'd diagram this as "martin luther king jr. -> civil rights activist"

another example: "the reason that yale accepted me is the 180 lsat score on file."
this is actually a causal statement, and you should not diagram this as "acceptance to yale -> 180 lsat score on file"

I think those are moreso examples of utility beyond that of a conditional indicator. Along the same lines as @lexxx745 and @hopefulling were discussing, those same statements could also be:

prime example of a civil rights activist → MLK (yes not a real life exclusivity, but don't attack Goku)

reason Yale accepted me → my 180

In the question referenced by @aszane21 its usage follows this pattern as well.

Since even this kind of sacrifice (motivated by the desire to sacrifice themselves when doing so would ensure the survival of their children or close relatives) is a form of altruism...

We don't use (sacrifice → altruism). We use (this kind of sacrifice → altruism).

I like @hopefulling 's categorization, as it's a reminder of what I think we're all pointing to here - that contextual awareness and the agility to recognize and act on the usage you see is essential.

Great discussion! Does anyone have any more usage examples from questions? Maybe one where it isn't used as a conditional indicator, where it would be counterproductive to see it as such? Or even as a trap?

audeamus300

@canihazJD uh.. technically, yeah I guess you could do that. But I think that just defeats the purpose of diagramming. Diagramming can help you see different ideas more clearly and link/chain them together to draw valid inferences.

If you have an inference question that asks for a valid inference, given:
"A prime example of a civil rights activist is MLK"
"All civil rights activists make a change"
Diagramming can help you chain ideas together and draw valid inferences.
MLK → civil rights activist → make a change.
Valid inference: MLK make a change (MLK → make a change)

But if you had:
"Prime example of a civil rights activist → MLK"
"civil rights activist → make a change"
It's really hard to see and chain the same ideas together to draw inferences; what's the point of diagramming in the first place?

Not just for diagramming, I think that the need to group certain English words into Groups 1-4, or the very existence of "conditional indicators" and such, is so that we can identity the logical relationship between different ideas better, see whether we can link similar ideas together, draw inferences, etc.
If they don't help me see the logical relationship better, I'm not sure if I see the point of this concept.

canihazJD

@audeamus300 said:
@canihazJD uh.. technically, yeah I guess you could do that. But I think that just defeats the purpose of diagramming. Diagramming can help you see different ideas more clearly and link/chain them together to draw valid inferences.

If you have an inference question that asks for a valid inference, given:
"A prime example of a civil rights activist is MLK"
"All civil rights activists make a change"
Diagramming can help you chain ideas together and draw valid inferences.
MLK → civil rights activist → make a change.
Valid inference: MLK make a change (MLK → make a change)

But if you had:
"Prime example of a civil rights activist → MLK"
"civil rights activist → make a change"
It's really hard to see and chain the same ideas together to draw inferences; what's the point of diagramming in the first place?

Not just for diagramming, I think that the need to group certain English words into Groups 1-4, or the very existence of "conditional indicators" and such, is so that we can identity the logical relationship between different ideas better, see whether we can link similar ideas together, draw inferences, etc.
If they don't help me see the logical relationship better, I'm not sure if I see the point of this concept.

Sorry, I erroneously assumed it was clear that wasn't a suggestion as to the optimal way to address @"LOWERCASE EVERYTHING" 's example, but an application it to the usage in the question @aszane21 originally asked about.

I thought in your examples the inference would still be drawn with equal ease (though I acknowledge the visual appeal of the first), in fact a level 4/5 question will often use the your second form specifically because it's harder... but that is getting off the point of the use of "is". Point being that it's context dependent. As you said, the purpose of conditional reasoning isn't solely to draw inferences but to see the relationships. The question in the OP is an instance where the translation employed for:

This kind of sacrifice is a form of altruism

was:

this kind of sacrifice → altruism

and not:

sacrifice → form of altruism

or:

form of altruism → sacrifice

in other words A(civil rights activist/sacrifice) is B(MLK/altruism) was changed to A→B precisely to see the logical relationship better (and match it). So yes, as framed, your first form applied to the MLK example (and I'm sure countless more) is likely more intuitive to draw the inference (whether one should be capable of pulling that inference out of either form is a different debate). In OP's example - where the task was to identify the a parallel - it isn't. Not to say that either would always be the case.

Without context, I don't think you can't say which one of your examples is optimal. I'll give MLK a break and hit LOWERCASE's other one:

the reason that yale accepted me is the 180 lsat score on file.

You likely won't be going this way:

acceptance to yale → 180 lsat score on file

and while this could be doable:

180 → yale acceptance

I think you could most easily throw the above into a stimulus where:

my acceptance to yale → my 180 score on file

would work.

So I dont think it defeats the purpose... because ease of inference detection is just one of several benefits of visual representation.

canihazJD

@"Jonathan Wang" I'm loving this discussion... would like to hear your take if you have the time!

LOWERCASE EVERYTHING

@canihazJD hey there so i've been summoned!

"the reason that yale accepted me is the 180 lsat score on file."

I think you could most easily throw the above into a stimulus where:

my acceptance to yale → my 180 score on file

would work.

hmm i think i see what you're trying to do.. but i personally wouldn't translate causal statements into conditional.
a causal statement implies and suggests several things. for one, it implies chronology (which event occurred first). so if you say "the reason that yale accepted me is the 180 lsat score on file," you are saying that 180 lsat score happened first, then yale acceptance happened second. you wouldn't be able to show this kind of relationship with a conditional statement; additionally, you wouldn't be able to show that it strongly suggests no competing cause. https://7sage.com/lesson/causation-theory/

@"LOWERCASE EVERYTHING" said:
context matters, and i wouldn't always treat "is" as a group 2 indicator like "must."

for instance, "a prime example of a civil rights activist is martin luther king jr."
you can't diagram this as "civil rights activist -> martin luther king jr."
i'd diagram this as "martin luther king jr. -> civil rights activist"

another example: "the reason that yale accepted me is the 180 lsat score on file."
this is actually a causal statement, and you should not diagram this as "acceptance to yale -> 180 lsat score on file"

as for my previous post, hmm.. i wanted to touch on the idea that context matters, and that there are many curveballs that the lsat can throw at us.
my purpose was to show that not all things that come after the word "is" needed to go to the right side of the arrow. (since group 2 indicator is defined: "the ideas introduced by (i.e., immediately following) these words are the necessary conditions.") https://7sage.com/lesson/basic-translation-group-2/
so the two counter-examples i gave do show that the ideas immediately following the word "is" are not always the necessary conditions.

hope this clarifies a few things!

canihazJD

@"LOWERCASE EVERYTHING" I think you were adequately clear... sorry if it seemed like I was implying otherwise. I'm fairly certain I agree with you on all counts.

If I'm understanding correctly (and I've been known not to) my objective was to build off of the "dogs" vs "this dog" @lexxx745 and @hopefulling were throwing around, and emphasize the "other" side of what you were saying, i.e. it is not the case that all things that come after "is" are necessary conditions (strict group 2 classification), but at the same time, there definitely are times it does. And the key is both being able to tell the difference and having the agility to adjust your attack... similar to how we'd say don't necessarily just start blasting out conditional logic maps at the first "if" you see. If we were to drop the Yale premise into a causal flaw question, yes - it would likely be counterproductive to just start lobbing →s everywhere, or likely diagramming anything for that matter; but in a different context you may still have a causal "is" statement in a stimulus where causal reasoning isn't the issue at hand, or just an "is" where there is no causal reasoning.

In hindsight maybe a causal statement wasn't the optimal choice to focus my part of the discussion on as it introduces the additional considerations you mentioned which kind of cloud my point. It was just already in play and I was being lazy.