Drawing Lawgic for the following statement

Webby_Songdo

I finished the logical reasoning section of the CC. Upon learning the basics of logic, I realized I am noticing that people, specifically lawyers and those who had studied for the LSAT in the past, actually use these logical indicators when they talk. For example, in the Netflix drama, Better Call Saul, Saul and his colleagues always use logical indicators. Furthermore, I begin to speak using logics, and it is just interesting. I am always drawing Lawgic in my head. I am just wondering if any of you, LSAT experts, could write the following statement in Lawgic as I still need to practice writing statements in Lawgic within my mind. Here it is:

If you do not want to do it, I am moving forward without you.

Here is the Lawgic I have:

/W → /Y

W= Want
Y= You

Could you all please see if this is correct?

Best,
Ken

Cant Get Right

This is actually a really important question. Here's how I'd represent it:

W --> M

The representation should show the relationship between the terms. The relationship is very simple. It's the terms themselves that are complex, and we don't really have a concise way to abstract all that complexity. You lose the point of abstraction--simplification--when you try to account for everything here.

The problem presented by the terms need to be dealt with, but not through abstract representation. Study them to ensure you understand exactly what they are. Identify the traps, because there's a lot the test writers can exploit here: What if I don't want to do it but do it anyway? What if I actually do want to do it but just never get around to it? If you move on without me, what can we conclude? These answers aren't complicated if you understand how the embedded clauses impact the meaning, but that's a different issue. Abstracting these terms will muddle, rather than clarify, the lessons of a really great example.

Edit: I somehow missed your logic and addressed an issue you weren't actually raising, lol. Your representation is fine. What matters is your terms are intuitive for you and you understand what they mean.

Webby_Songdo

@"Cant Get Right" said:
This is actually a really important question. Here's how I'd represent it:

W --> M

The representation should show the relationship between the terms. The relationship is very simple. It's the terms themselves that are complex, and we don't really have a concise way to abstract all that complexity. You lose the point of abstraction--simplification--when you try to account for everything here.

The problem presented by the terms need to be dealt with, but not through abstract representation. Study them to ensure you understand exactly what they are. Identify the traps, because there's a lot the test writers can exploit here: What if I don't want to do it but do it anyway? What if I actually do want to do it but just never get around to it? If you move on without me, what can we conclude? These answers aren't complicated if you understand how the embedded clauses impact the meaning, but that's a different issue. Abstracting these terms will muddle, rather than clarify, the lessons of a really great example.

Edit: I somehow missed your logic and addressed an issue you weren't actually raising, lol. Your representation is fine. What matters is your terms are intuitive for you and you understand what they mean.

I actually looked up my CC notes and found out more about embedded conditional.

If the seeds are planted in the winter, then flowers will not blossom unless fertilizer is applied
X= SPW
Y= FB→ FA
SPW→ (FB→ FA)
SPW and FB→ FA

If you do not want to do it, I am moving forward without you.
X=/W
Y= /M→Y
/W→(/M→Y)
/W and /M→Y

I think this is the proper way to do it aka the "field manual" way

Cant Get Right

I'm not interpreting the necessary condition as conditional at all. It's not "IF I'm moving on THEN it will be without you." No. If the sufficient is triggered, there's no ifs about it: I am moving on.

Moving-on-without-you is a singular concept here. We just don't have a singular word to express it. For example: "Schadenfreude" is a German word that means taking pleasure at the misfortunes of others. We don't have a word for this in English, so we have to construct a noun phrase ("taking pleasure at the misfortunes of others") to express the same idea. But just because we have to create a more complex grammatical structure to express the same concept doesn't mean the English is conceptually more complex. The concept is exactly the same, and it's a rather arbitrary feature of each language that German has a word for this and English happens not to.

So when I represent the necessary condition with "M," it's a stand-in for the full concept of Moving-on-without-you. We don't have one word for it, but don't mistake grammatical complexity for conceptual complexity. If you can comprehend moving-on-without-you as a singular concept, that's going to be the best way to think about it.

Webby_Songdo

@"Cant Get Right" said:
I'm not interpreting the necessary condition as conditional at all. It's not "IF I'm moving on THEN it will be without you." No. If the sufficient is triggered, there's no ifs about it: I am moving on.

Moving-on-without-you is a singular concept here. We just don't have a singular word to express it. For example: "Schadenfreude" is a German word that means taking pleasure at the misfortunes of others. We don't have a word for this in English, so we have to construct a noun phrase ("taking pleasure at the misfortunes of others") to express the same idea. But just because we have to create a more complex grammatical structure to express the same concept doesn't mean the English is conceptually more complex. The concept is exactly the same, and it's a rather arbitrary feature of each language that German has a word for this and English happens not to.

So when I represent the necessary condition with "M," it's a stand-in for the full concept of Moving-on-without-you. We don't have one word for it, but don't mistake grammatical complexity for conceptual complexity. If you can comprehend moving-on-without-you as a singular concept, that's going to be the best way to think about it.

Oh, OK. Thank you. I understand, now, why you said /W→M. I really appreciate your thought!