Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

LR: You will choose to buy something vs. You will buy something

BumblebeeBumblebee Member
in Logical Reasoning 640 karma

Hi 7sagers,

Is there a difference in the meaning of the statements below?

If you see the desk, you will choose to buy the desk.
If you see the desk, you will buy the desk.

*If the main clauses are written in the past tense, the sentences mean different things.
I chose to buy the desk (intended to buy it, unsure if one actually bought it) vs. I bought the desk (actually bought it)

However, written in the conditional+future tense, the sentences seem to imply the same thing. Is there a difference?

Thanks very much!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • goingfor99thgoingfor99th Free Trial Member
    edited February 2018 3072 karma

    Functionally, no. The "choosing" doesn't change much, because the person buying the desk in the second statement still has to "choose" to buy the desk if he/she does in fact buy it.

    That is, unless he/she is a hard determinist and doesn't believe in choice/free will. (lol, that's just a bit of humor.)

  • BumblebeeBumblebee Member
    640 karma

    @goingfor99th said:
    Functionally, no. The "choosing" doesn't change much, because the person buying the desk in the second statement still has to "choose" to buy the desk if he/she does in fact buy it.

    That is, unless he/she is a hard determinist and doesn't believe in choice/free will. (lol, that's just a bit of humor.)

    haha i was thinking along the lines of the hard determinist when interpreting the meaning of the second statement.
    If you see the desk, (whether you choose to or not) you will buy the desk,
    as opposed to if you see the desk, you will choose to buy it.

    In any case, the necessary condition that follows functionally means "You will buy it".
    Thanks for clearing it up!

  • J.CHRIS.ALSTJ.CHRIS.ALST Alum Member
    edited February 2018 399 karma

    Also, just because one chooses to buy a desk doesn't necessarily mean they will buy it. Perhaps they will be sold out, or some other phenomenon will prevent the buying of the desk.

  • joycool9567joycool9567 Alum Member
    edited February 2018 133 karma

    This debate should go way back to 78 century German idealism i guess. Some would say choosing inevitably invokes action as if action and our will are one and the same same thing. If you will to buy the desk then you will buy the desk. After all you cannot buy the desk without your will or without choosing to do so. Some would argue that it is not the same. To will and to act are fundamentally different. Any way for lsat it would not matter or at least I hope

  • BumblebeeBumblebee Member
    640 karma

    Wow! German idealism is really tough to grasp--I took a class on it a couple years ago and my brain almost fried!

    From several observations, I've found that LSAT wants the test takers to differentiate between "will" and "action" (in a less complicated way than the concepts of German idealism, hopefully!)

    "Jeremy intended to study for the LSAT" (will) does not mean "Jeremy studied for the LSAT" (action).

    It seems to be emphasized repeatedly that we cannot infer "action" from "will", and often vice versa.

    As for the future tense of "to choose", this thread seems to have reached a consensus that "will choose to do X" is functionally equal to "will do X".

    On a side note, my question originated from the last sentence in the stimulus of PT18/S4/Q7. The last sentence is a conditional statement containing "will choose to do X" and I wanted to interpret it accurately!

    Thanks everyone!

Sign In or Register to comment.