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

Lawgic Translation

shegotitshegotit Member
in Logical Reasoning 211 karma

I am doing all the steps correctly except for when it come to translating the symbols back to English. How can I ensure that I am translating correctly because my English Lawgic is not matching JY'S.

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8716 karma

    Can you give an example to help clarify?

  • shegotitshegotit Member
    211 karma

    If (Yishawn disliked the cold), (she would not spend her vacation in Alaska. )
    C.....A
    /A.../C
    I said "If Yishawn spends her vacation in Alaska then it must be warm

    Jy said that if she is spending her vacation in Alaska then it must not be true that she dislikes the cold

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8716 karma

    There might be two general issues here:
    1. Is that different people might abbreviate a conditional statement in a slightly different way. This is totally fine. I might just call the second element here with my own shorthand “Alaska*” that *telling me and me only that there is something else to the Alaska idea. Others might be more concise than me. So you will find that sometimes this ok deviation from what Mr. Ping writes might occur. As long as the relationships are clear and coherent, and the negations (if necessary) are present this is totally fine. It is certainly possible that a group of 5 people might have 5 different but all logically identical abbreviations. Some people might just call the Alaska element “A”, others might not even abbreviate and keep it all in their heads!

    1. The other more serious issue here is proper logical negation. Remember, as discussed in the lessons, when we take the logical negation of “cold” we are not saying “warm” we are saying “not cold.” This is outlined in the CC. Furthermore, your translation is not an accurate rendering of the original statement. The original statement you provided is about this person disliking the cold, not about whether or not in reality it is not cold. This type of parsing is absolutely critical for the LSAT and as future lawyers.

    So the takeaway here is to remember what the statement is actually saying: and then keep in mind to be careful of colloquial negations rather than logical negations.

    David

  • shegotitshegotit Member
    211 karma

    Thank you for this explanation it makes it clearer. Are you good at the group three indicators? I am having a hard time trying to figure out which idea that you negate but I will notice on some flashcards that it differs. I provided examples below.

    1. Unless you practice you will not learn
      /p..../l
      l...p

    2. The truck carries rice or wheat
      /r...w
      /w...r

    3.There is no crime without law
    c...l
    /l.../c

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8716 karma

    Not 100% sure what you are asking. What you have written above looks to me to be correct followed by the contrapositive.

  • shegotitshegotit Member
    211 karma

    It correct I am just confused on this sign"/." Why is it that for number one they both have the sign but for number two only one has the sign. I am not sure how to explain it.

  • OhnoeshalpmeOhnoeshalpme Alum Member ⭐
    edited June 2018 2531 karma

    @shegotit said:
    It correct I am just confused on this sign"/." Why is it that for number one they both have the sign but for number two only one has the sign. I am not sure how to explain it.

    For number one, you need the "/" on both items because both items are being negated. If I don't practice then I won't learn.

    For number two, you need the negation because it is a "not both" situation. If you have one you must not have the other. Additionally, the truck must carry one of the two so the negation of one implies that the truck has the other of the two. If I don't have rice then I must have wheat. If I don't have wheat then I must have rice.

    The "/" is there to imply the negation of that thing.

  • shegotitshegotit Member
    211 karma

    @Ohnoeshalpme Can you explain why number three isnt being negated in the first step?

  • OhnoeshalpmeOhnoeshalpme Alum Member ⭐
    2531 karma

    @shegotit
    The word "without" is a "group 3" word, meaning that you take the two terms: No crime and law. You set them in any order, in this case No crime----> Law. Our group 3 condition tells us to negate the sufficient condition. In this case, "No Crime" needs to be negated to become: Crime. So we end up with "If there is crime then there is law".

    The "no" in "no crime" makes it a negation of "crime" so when we apply our group 3 condition to "no crime" it just becomes "crime".

    Hope this helps :)

  • shegotitshegotit Member
    211 karma

    @Ohnoeshalpme I think I understand it a little bit more. Thank you for helping me!

Sign In or Register to comment.