PT21.S2 Q12 - Government subsidiaries have been proposed...

Webby_Songdo

Hi,
I have a question about how Lawgic is drawn out for LSAT 21 Section 2 Question 12 December 1996 test.

The line in the logical reasoning stimulus goes as, “Unless these techniques are implemented, erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled.”

JY Ping translated it into Lawgic as /I(implement) -> /C(controlled), or C -> I

However, my understanding is that the sentence should be re-written as, “Erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled unless these techniques are implemented.”

This line can be translated into /C -> /I since “unless” is a negate sufficient and “cannot” is negate necessary. Thus, C is negated due to “unless”, and I is negated due to “cannot.”

What am I doing wrong here?

Admin Note: Edited titled. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-12/

canihazJD

@valuequietness said:
Hi,
I have a question about how Lawgic is drawn out for LSAT 21 Section 2 Question 12 December 1996 test.

The line in the logical reasoning stimulus goes as, “Unless these techniques are implemented, erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled.”

JY Ping translated it into Lawgic as /I(implement) -> /C(controlled), or C -> I

However, my understanding is that the sentence should be re-written as, “Erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled unless these techniques are implemented.”

Aside from switching the order of the antecedent and consequent you literally just said the same thing twice... which is why the translation is the same.

“Unless these techniques are implemented, erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled.”

“Erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled unless these techniques are implemented.”

"If A, B" is the same as saying "B, if A."

This line can be translated into /C -> /I since “unless” is a negate sufficient and “cannot” is negate necessary. Thus, C is negated due to “unless”, and I is negated due to “cannot.”

What am I doing wrong here?

The "cannot" addresses whether erosion can be controlled so if you wanted to translate the "cannot" you would have:

/implemented → (Erosion → /controlled)

Where the cannot negates the necessary condition of "controlled" (or "erosion" if you go with controlled → /erosion) in the embedded conditional.

But we don't have time for all that noise, so as we are operating in the domain of erosion, you can factor "erosion" out and just say /I → /C.

Webby_Songdo

@canihazJD said:

@valuequietness said:
Hi,
I have a question about how Lawgic is drawn out for LSAT 21 Section 2 Question 12 December 1996 test.

The line in the logical reasoning stimulus goes as, “Unless these techniques are implemented, erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled.”

JY Ping translated it into Lawgic as /I(implement) -> /C(controlled), or C -> I

However, my understanding is that the sentence should be re-written as, “Erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled unless these techniques are implemented.”

Aside from switching the order of the antecedent and consequent you literally just said the same thing twice... which is why the translation is the same.

“Unless these techniques are implemented, erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled.”

“Erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled unless these techniques are implemented.”

"If A, B" is the same as saying "B, if A."

This line can be translated into /C -> /I since “unless” is a negate sufficient and “cannot” is negate necessary. Thus, C is negated due to “unless”, and I is negated due to “cannot.”

What am I doing wrong here?

The "cannot" addresses whether erosion can be controlled so if you wanted to translate the "cannot" you would have:

/implemented → (Erosion → /controlled)

Where the cannot negates the necessary condition of "controlled" (or "erosion" if you go with controlled → /erosion) in the embedded conditional.

But we don't have time for all that noise, so as we are operating in the domain of erosion, you can factor "erosion" out and just say /I → /C.

Sounds good. I did not know that when we have "cannot" whatever that phrase is under automatically goes to "negate, necessary," and I did not know that when we have "unless" whatever that phrase has goes automatically to "negate, sufficient."

Webby_Songdo

@canihazJD said:

@valuequietness said:
Hi,
I have a question about how Lawgic is drawn out for LSAT 21 Section 2 Question 12 December 1996 test.

The line in the logical reasoning stimulus goes as, “Unless these techniques are implemented, erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled.”

JY Ping translated it into Lawgic as /I(implement) -> /C(controlled), or C -> I

However, my understanding is that the sentence should be re-written as, “Erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled unless these techniques are implemented.”

Aside from switching the order of the antecedent and consequent you literally just said the same thing twice... which is why the translation is the same.

“Unless these techniques are implemented, erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled.”

“Erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled unless these techniques are implemented.”

"If A, B" is the same as saying "B, if A."

This line can be translated into /C -> /I since “unless” is a negate sufficient and “cannot” is negate necessary. Thus, C is negated due to “unless”, and I is negated due to “cannot.”

What am I doing wrong here?

The "cannot" addresses whether erosion can be controlled so if you wanted to translate the "cannot" you would have:

/implemented → (Erosion → /controlled)

Where the cannot negates the necessary condition of "controlled" (or "erosion" if you go with controlled → /erosion) in the embedded conditional.

But we don't have time for all that noise, so as we are operating in the domain of erosion, you can factor "erosion" out and just say /I → /C.

Thank you so much for your clear explanation!

canihazJD

@valuequietness said:
Sounds good. I did not know that when we have "cannot" whatever that phrase is under automatically goes to "negate, necessary," and I did not know that when we have "unless" whatever that phrase has goes automatically to "negate, sufficient."

It doesn't automatically pertain to the phrase immediately after. "A's cannot B" means both if you are an A, you cannot B (A→/B) and that if you can B, you are not an A (B→/A).

The problem was that "cannot" was operating in an embedded conditional. When correctly applied, you can "negate necessary" either (controlled) or (erosion). Similarly, using "unless" you can "negate sufficient" either the antecedent (implemented) or the consequent (the embedded conditional of erosion cannot be controlled)... the latter giving you erosion "cannot not be controlled" or just "controlled" for C→I.

Webby_Songdo

@canihazJD said:

@valuequietness said:
Sounds good. I did not know that when we have "cannot" whatever that phrase is under automatically goes to "negate, necessary," and I did not know that when we have "unless" whatever that phrase has goes automatically to "negate, sufficient."

It doesn't automatically pertain to the phrase immediately after. "A's cannot B" means both if you are an A, you cannot B (A→/B) and that if you can B, you are not an A (B→/A).

The problem was that "cannot" was operating in an embedded conditional. When correctly applied, you can "negate necessary" either (controlled) or (erosion). Similarly, using "unless" you can "negate sufficient" either the antecedent (implemented) or the consequent (the embedded conditional of erosion cannot be controlled)... the latter giving you erosion "cannot not be controlled" or just "controlled" for C→I.

I understand perfectly now. My one last question is how do you know "cannot" is an embedded conditional and not a conditional indicator?

canihazJD

@valuequietness said:
I understand perfectly now. My one last question is how do you know "cannot" is an embedded conditional and not a conditional indicator?

It is a conditional indicator, you just have to know what conditional statement it is applied to. An embedded conditional statement is just that, a condition statement that is contained within another conditional statement.

If its not apparent, you just have to parse out the language.

My car cannot start unless it has gas.

You can either factor out the domain of "my car" like we did with "erosion" and say start → gas, or say in a completely unnecessary way (my car → start)→gas.

Another maybe more intuitive way to look at it is that you can use "cannot" as a negation as opposed to a conditional indicator.

Cannot start = /start.

Cannot be controlled = /controlled

If erosion then cannot be controlled

If erosion then /controlled

Unless implemented, if erosion, then not controlled.

Factor out erosion...

Unless implemented not controlled.

/I → /C

Webby_Songdo

@canihazJD said:

@valuequietness said:
I understand perfectly now. My one last question is how do you know "cannot" is an embedded conditional and not a conditional indicator?

It is a conditional indicator, you just have to know what conditional statement it is applied to. An embedded conditional statement is just that, a condition statement that is contained within another conditional statement.

If its not apparent, you just have to parse out the language.

My car cannot start unless it has gas.

You can either factor out the domain of "my car" like we did with "erosion" and say start → gas, or say in a completely unnecessary way (my car → start)→gas.

Another maybe more intuitive way to look at it is that you can use "cannot" as a negation as opposed to a conditional indicator.

Cannot start = /start.

Cannot be controlled = /controlled

If erosion then cannot be controlled

If erosion then /controlled

Unless implemented, if erosion, then not controlled.

Factor out erosion...

Unless implemented not controlled.

/I → /C

I sincerely appreciate your kind explanation. It means a lot. Words can't describe how much gratitude I feel for you for helping me out.

I just graduated from a master's program at Johns Hopkins Advanced Academic Program. The degree was in Communication, and the entire program was done online. It was a struggle to work with professors because they were unwilling to help me. I feel as if I get the same amount of attention I got from the 7Sage platform at JHU AAP, I would have excelled at this program. Anyways, having gone through a 50,000 USD distance learning graduate program with a minimum help received from professors, I feel as 7Sage is just a phenomenal platform where everyone is productive and cooperative with each other and maintains healthy relationships. I can't wait to continue working on this platform to not only raise my LSAT score but to get to know everyone else in our journey, too.

Best,
Ken

canihazJD

@valuequietness said:

@canihazJD said:

@valuequietness said:
I understand perfectly now. My one last question is how do you know "cannot" is an embedded conditional and not a conditional indicator?

It is a conditional indicator, you just have to know what conditional statement it is applied to. An embedded conditional statement is just that, a condition statement that is contained within another conditional statement.

If its not apparent, you just have to parse out the language.

My car cannot start unless it has gas.

You can either factor out the domain of "my car" like we did with "erosion" and say start → gas, or say in a completely unnecessary way (my car → start)→gas.

Another maybe more intuitive way to look at it is that you can use "cannot" as a negation as opposed to a conditional indicator.

Cannot start = /start.

Cannot be controlled = /controlled

If erosion then cannot be controlled

If erosion then /controlled

Unless implemented, if erosion, then not controlled.

Factor out erosion...

Unless implemented not controlled.

/I → /C

I sincerely appreciate your kind explanation. It means a lot. Words can't describe how much gratitude I feel for you for helping me out.

I just graduated from a master's program at Johns Hopkins Advanced Academic Program. The degree was in Communication, and the entire program was done online. It was a struggle to work with professors because they were unwilling to help me. I feel as if I get the same amount of attention I got from the 7Sage platform at JHU AAP, I would have excelled at this program. Anyways, having gone through a 50,000 USD distance learning graduate program with a minimum help received from professors, I feel as 7Sage is just a phenomenal platform where everyone is productive and cooperative with each other and maintains healthy relationships. I can't wait to continue working on this platform to not only raise my LSAT score but to get to know everyone else in our journey, too.

Best,
Ken

No worries! The community is what makes this place great, which is even more amazing because of the inherent high rate of turnover. Not so long ago I was in here seeking help the same way.