Conditional Logic (Basic Translation Group 1 Help)

LSAT dingus

Hi,

I was practicing making some conditional statements for group 1 by implementing the generic "all jedis use the force" example. Using the "all" indicator, I wrote down the following: "force users are all jedis". Based on the translation rule, this should make sense since jedis is still the sufficient condition (the idea introduced by the indicator) for the necessary condition of being a force user. However, when I read the phrase in plain english without concentrating on the logic, "force users are all jedis" sounds like it is saying "all force users are jedis".

Is "force users are all jedis" still demonstrating the same logic as the original "all jedis use the force" (J→F)? I'm wondering if this is one of those examples where the english language makes a statement sound different than the actual logic within it. I would really appreciate some help/feedback. Thanks

thatoneguy-1

Hey there, I wanted to chime in a bit. Those are two logically equivalent sentences. What something sounds like it is saying is not what it is saying, or how it translates to logic. With this test we have to stick to what is being presented as part of the stimulus.

All Jedis use the force. (J→F)
Force users are all jedis. (J→F)

Both examples use the group 1 indicator so we make the information after "all" the sufficient condition, and the remaining falls into the necessary condition.

Best

Jonathan Wang

Not quite, tigerlily. The two sentences are not equivalent. The reason is grammatical: force users are all Jedi makes the 'all' refer back to the term "force users", not to the term "Jedi". You start with the group of force users, and are attempting to assign the label of Jedi to them. How many of them? All of them. So, Force User -> Jedi.

This is different from your usual situation where your group 1 indicator doesn't start the sentence. If I were to say "He's a force user if he's a Jedi", the word 'if' refers to the term "Jedi", so that one does translate to J -> F. Why? Because, again, grammar - we're starting with the Jedi and attempting to assign the characteristic of force user to them.

Another example: "Football players are all jerks" is definitely not J -> FP. That sentence literally does not say that every jerk in existence is a football player. Rather, I'm starting with my group of football players, and I'm telling you that every single one of them is a jerk (no offense to any football players reading this). FP -> J, because the additional word 'are' makes the word 'all' refer back to the football players.

Finally, a group 2 example for good measure: compare "friendship is required for loyalty", versus "friendship requires loyalty". The sentences are definitely not the same. What's necessary in each situation? And what is the word that clues you in grammatically to the difference?

I hope this helps.