PT77.S2.Q20 - critic: it is common to argue

CrushLSAT

Hi All,

So the stimulus in #20 reads,
"If one does not criticize a form of behavior in oneself or vow to stop it, then one should not criticize that form of behavior in another."

Would this sentence translate to
1. ~Criticize one's own behaviour AND ~Vow to stop it --> ~ Criticize other's behavior or
2. ~Criticize one's own behaviour OR ~ Vow to stop it --> ~ Criticize other's behavor?

I initially thought that the latter was the case but not sure about it anymore... Any feedback will be greatly appreciated!
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-20/

Creasey LSAT

I would think it's exclusive because "vows to stop" implies that one has already self-criticized that behavior.

CrushLSAT

@"Creasey LSAT" I haven't thought of it that way but I think that makes sense. Thanks for sharing your thought!

wilderness

Your translation is incorrect. The negation does not carry over to vow, as ~vow to stop it would mean that you're NOT vowing to stop it.

I believe that this is an inclusive or. Here's why:

(1) If one does not criticize a form of behavior in oneself (let's call this CFB)
(2) or vow to stop it (let's call this VSI)

So we have: If ~CFB OR VSI --> One should not criticize that form of behavior in another.

Now, this conditional is fulfilled if we either don't criticize a form of behavior in oneself or vow to stop it. But if we fulfill both these conditions, the conclusion still follows. For example:

(1) ~ a or b --> c
(2) ~a
(3) b
(4) ~a & b (conjoining 2 & 3)

Therefore

(5) c because of (1) and (2)
or c because of (3) and (1)

Another way to think about it from JY's examples

If you invite either John or Harry to the party, I'll give you a beer.

Let's say you invite John AND Harry to the party. Well, I'm giving you the beer, cause I didn't specify but not both.

wilderness

@"Creasey LSAT" said:
I would think it's exclusive because "vows to stop" implies that one has already self-criticized that behavior.

I don't think you can make this assumption. Let's say that my friend tells me to stop borrowing his car. Now, I may not see anything wrong about borrowing his car and therefore don't self-criticize said action. But I can vow to stop it, simply because he's my friend and it's his car.

The question is whether vowing to stop an action --> self-criticism of such action. But we can think of plenty of scenarios in which we vow to stop doing something even if we don't think that that action is wrong or we did anything wrong by committing said action.

E.g., someone who gets away with a petty theft charge who vows to the judge never to do it again but doesn't think what he did was wrong.

CrushLSAT

Hi @wilderness Thanks for that clarification!! I initially did not negate "vow to stop it" but it was negated in the explanation provided on the LSATHacks website which I found to be a bit confusing . So just to reiterate, you are saying in this example that if either the person does not criticize their own behavior or vows to stop it or do both then they should not criticize other's behavior correct? I'm glad you clarified a lot of the confusion I had with this question!

wilderness

@CrushLSAT

No problem! Yes. If you (1) don't criticize your own behavior or (2) vow to stop it or (3) both then you should not criticize other's behavior. Because if you're doing (3) both, you're simply stating that in this world, you simultaneously (1) don't criticize your own behavior and also (2) vow to stop it. If it's true that either one of these two is sufficient to entail the conclusion, then having both of them is just icing on the cake!

On the LSAT, as J.Y. says, we're usually given inclusive ors. If they want to give you an exclusive or, they'll tell you, "either x or y but not both" which would translate to x <-> /y if I'm correct.

CrushLSAT

@wilderness Awesomeness, thank you so much