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

Logic translation experiment

ShrilarauneShrilaraune Alum Member
in Logical Reasoning 169 karma

Hi all! I ran into a logic based MBT game in my lsat PT that quite honestly stumped me. So I want to present a version of it here in pure logic to see how my fellow 7 sagers work through it. This will make more sense in a bit:

All A's are X
All B's are X
If X is /Y then /Z
All Y Xs are C
Most Z Xs have F

In my opinion things start to get a little dicey at the If X is /Y then /Z but. So for starters, how would you translate this line into logic? Ignoring the statements that follow for now.
Thank you so much!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • MindyKaleMindyKale Alum Member
    edited December 2018 350 karma

    (X=/Y) ---> /Z That would mean if X is not Y then not Z to me. However I'd be interested if someone has an alternate method to translate this.

  • Lucas CarterLucas Carter Alum Member ⭐
    2804 karma

    I think it would be considered an embedded conditional where it could be represented as "T". We would define T to mean a world where All Xs are /Y. So if we know we have a world where X----->/Y then we know /Z. So T ---------> /Z, where T= X------->/Y.

  • ShrilarauneShrilaraune Alum Member
    169 karma

    @MindyKale and @"Lucas Carter" Thanks for responding! Both of your responses make sense to me actually and seem pretty intuitive. The next phase of my experiment is really to see if either of these notations work with the actual question. I've read explanations, naturally ( though I don't have the 7sage version of this test so I haven't seen that video) and they all use different techniques to write this out. But none of them seem very intuitive.

    The Question is from PT 65 S1 Q25. The phrase that tripped me up, and made it hard for me to connect things was, "But if a public place is uncomfortable it is not well designed." I know that translates to /Comfortable->/WD (generally) and that with the next line the chain we get is: WD --> Comfortable-->S. It's chaining this up to the original statements C--> P and R--> P that proves problematic for me. Does that make sense? This three way chain is all about P for sure, but I'm not sure how to indicate that in a way that allows me to connect the first two premises to the statement. Let me know if I've been unclear at all!
    Thank you!

Sign In or Register to comment.