It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- 28.5K All Categories
- 24.1K LSAT
- 15.1K General
- 26 Sage Advice
- 4.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.2K Reading Comprehension
- 1.5K Logic Games
- 46 Podcasts
- 178 Webinars
- 0 Scholarships
- 189 Test Center Reviews
- 1.6K Study Groups
- 95 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.1K Specific LSAT Dates
- 4 June 2023 LSAT
- 0 April 2023 LSAT
- 1 February 2023 LSAT
- 1 January 2023 LSAT
- 0 November 2022 LSAT
- 5 October 2022 LSAT
- 10 September 2022 LSAT
- 26 August 2022 LSAT
- 34 June 2022 LSAT
- 2 April 2022 LSAT
- 5 March 2022 LSAT
- 4.3K Not LSAT
- 3.5K Law School Admissions
- 7 Law School Explained
- 11 Forum Rules
- 481 Technical Problems
- 255 Off-topic

matiecena83
Alum Member

If C does not occur, then A and B cannot both occur

Would the diagram look like

/C > A or B

or...

/C > /A & /B

or are those both wrong @.@ I'm so confused

## Comments

I think this is embedded logic, but hopefully someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.

There's a basic "If x then y" statement, so we know there's going to be a "-->" relationship between the two sides.

"If C does not occur" is simple to diagram:

/CThe latter part "then A and B cannot both occur" is by itself a conditional logic statement:

A --> /BSo now we just combine the two pieces together with the arrow:

/C-->(A --> /B). We want the statement to read as, "If not C, then (this relationship between A & B )." The relationship between A & B just happens to be a not-both.@obloome Ahhh that's a great point, I missed that! But could you still write it as [/C > /A & /B]? Like functionally, would both statements affect a game in identical ways? Or should I go back to that embedded lesson....

@yunonsie Hm, I don't think they're the same statements.

Let's look at your statement first:

/C --> /A & /B."And" statements in the necessary can be split. So we could split this to say:

/C --> /AAND/C --> /BThis means that whenever we have /C, we never have A

ANDwe never have B. That is, A and B are both out in the world of /C.*Cool. Now let's look at this other one

/C --> (A --> /B)and again assume that we have /C so that the necessary is triggered. In this situation, we actually have three different options that can happen in the "/C universe" because of the not-both logic.1. A --> /B (A in, B out)

2. B --> /A (B in, A out)

3. A and B both out *(which is what your statement said)

Your original statement captures only one of the three worlds inherent in the not-both relationship. If you only wrote the statement as #3, then you'd be forgetting the first two possibilities on a game where either A or B could be in.

We don't want A and B to be out forever and always. We just don't want them to be in together.

@obloome Thank you! SO helpful!

@obloome Thank you!

@yunonsie @matiecena83 no problem! Never thought I'd get to a point where I knew enough to answer questions yet here we are, lol. Glad it was helpful.