LR Mumble Jumble

djkrd92

Hey Fellow 7Sagers,

Just wanted to ask you a question about something that I've been seeing throughout Logical Reasoning questions and oftentimes, answer choices as well. What's a good way to remember what testmakers are talking about when they say "Confuses _____ for/with _____"??

For example:
LSAC confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient conditions.

Does this mean that what is meant to be a necessary condition is being mistaken by LSAC as a sufficient condition?....or vice versa...?

So should I remember this as whatever comes after "Mistakes/Confuses a _____" to be what is correct and that the author is mistakenly thinking of it as whatever comes after "...for a ____"?

Sorry for the extremely confusing explanation and wording....

c.janson35

Yes, if the author is confusing a necessary condition to be a sufficient condition, that means that he or she is interpreting a necessary condition to be sufficient.

For example:

If it's raining, I won't go to the beach.
I didn't go to the beach.
Therefore, it must be raining.

Here, I would be mistaking the necessary condition to be sufficient. That is, I'm taking the fact that I didn't go to the beach as enough information (I.e. Sufficient) to conclude that it is raining. But the necessary condition can't prove the sufficient. I would be mistaken to try to do so.

nicole.hopkins

Right—the only way "raining" and "won't go to the beach" can be interchangeable is if it's a biconditional—e.g. "I won't go to the beach if and only if it's raining." So if I didn't go to the beach, we know it's raining since that's the only reason that would preclude my going to the beach.

But in the absence of (pretty rare, in my experience) biconditional indicators, no swappy-swappy!

c.janson35

I also like this beach example because it's a good way to show that the necessary can stand all by itself, and often does!

There could be hundreds of reasons why I don't go to the beach independent of rain. For example, if I'm really sunburned, if I'm taking a PT, or if I'm delighting in old Ted Cruz debate championship videos where his ego proves to be his ultimate downfall (heh); all of these reasons could be sufficient conditions for why I did not go to the beach, so just knowing the necessary exists doesn't tell us anything. In fact, it would be a mistake to try to do so, which is where the mistaking/confusing language comes from.

nye8870

So if Ted Cruz runs out of time ---> He will lose the debate.
Ted Cruz lost the debate.
Therefore he ran out of time.
Although this is true, he could have lost for various other reasons. So just because he lost does not "Necessarily" mean he ran out of time. But if he did (...and he did...) that is sufficient to lose the debate.

nicole.hopkins

@nye8870 said:
Although this is true, he could have lost for various other reasons. So just because he lost does not "Necessarily" mean he ran out of time. But if he did (...and he did...) that is sufficient to lose the debate.

lol lol lol lol

Pacifico

@c.janson35 said:
I'm delighting in old Ted Cruz debate championship videos where his ego proves to be his ultimate downfall

Where can I find these amazing videos?

nicole.hopkins

@Pacifico said:
Where can I find these amazing videos?

In a box under my bed

djkrd92

Hahahah got it!

Thanks for the help and for the laughs!

djkrd92

wait....does Ted Cruz losing the debate mean that Good Ole Donald won????? oh god.