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

"If" ALWAYS introduces sufficient conditions?

decesares1decesares1 Member
edited January 2023 in Logical Reasoning 85 karma

"If you study, you will beat the LSAT." This is an example given here on 7sage, and it seems to work. Studying is a sufficient condition to beat the LSAT (apparently). S -> B

On another website, an example was given along the lines of: "If I put gas in my car, my car will run." And, here, putting gas in the car was said to be the necessary condition. The car needs gas to run. Gas is necessary for the car to run. CR -> G

But in that example, IF introduces the necessary condition, not the sufficient condition. What am I not understanding exactly? Does IF introduce sufficient conditions or necessary conditions? Huge thanks in advance!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • offy0c-1-1offy0c-1-1 Live Member
    256 karma

    Let me see if I can help. I know that there are situations in which "if" is tagged along with the necessary condition BUT this is only because there are other component factors like "if" being present with "only if". In this case the "if" because it is with the "only" would have to be diagram as the necessary condition. Not sure if that answers your question?

    Not sure how into the CC you are in but there are scenarios in which you can logical indicators that are present with other logical indicators. Ex.) you can have "unless" with "no" In this case you can choose either or and still diagram the statement appropriately.

  • decesares1decesares1 Member
    85 karma

    @"offy0c-1-1" said:
    Let me see if I can help. I know that there are situations in which "if" is tagged along with the necessary condition BUT this is only because there are other component factors like "if" being present with "only if". In this case the "if" because it is with the "only" would have to be diagram as the necessary condition. Not sure if that answers your question?

    Not sure how into the CC you are in but there are scenarios in which you can logical indicators that are present with other logical indicators. Ex.) you can have "unless" with "no" In this case you can choose either or and still diagram the statement appropriately.

    Hey buddy! Thanks for the reply. :)

    I understand that IF =/= ONLY IF, but that wasn't the case with the aforementioned car and gas scenario. I'd link to the website, but I'm sure that linking to a competitor's site would be frowned upon here, and understandably so.

    I actually got the question wrong because I marked "gas in the car" as the sufficient condition. I marked it as the sufficient condition because it was introduced by IF, and also because, while we know in the "real world" that many different factors can contribute to a car's running, the statement tells us definitively "IF I put gas in my car, my car will run."

    I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something. I want to make sure that IF (not ONLY IF or any other alternative phrasing) signals a sufficient condition, never a necessary condition.

  • JesseWeNeedToCookJesseWeNeedToCook Alum Member
    137 karma

    Review what lesson this type of problem this is from. It is giving an example of flawed reasoning. You left out the part where my car needs gas to run. (assuming we found this prompt in the same place.)

    Anways example aside, yes, If's will introduce sufficient conditions.

  • decesares1decesares1 Member
    edited January 2023 85 karma

    @JesseWeNeedToCook " said:
    Review what lesson this type of problem this is from. It is giving an example of flawed reasoning. You left out the part where my car needs gas to run. (assuming we found this prompt in the same place.)

    Thanks for the response!

    It seems you found the example. Yes, it is giving an example of flawed reasoning. And yes, I did leave out the part at the very beginning. The passage, in its entirety, reads: "My car needs gas in order to run. Therefore, if I put some gas in the tank, my car will run."

    So does the first part, "My car needs gas in order to run" change things so significantly that the IF statement can no longer be counted upon to introduce a sufficient condition?

    A 1:1 comparison would be if the other example read: "You need to study in order to pass the LSAT. Therefore, if you study, you will beat the LSAT." Here, with the first statement preceding the second, we would then write the rule as B -> S instead of S -> B ? That doesn't seem right to me.

  • bmchapbmchap Core Member
    50 karma

    @decesares1 said:

    @JesseWeNeedToCook " said:
    Review what lesson this type of problem this is from. It is giving an example of flawed reasoning. You left out the part where my car needs gas to run. (assuming we found this prompt in the same place.)

    Thanks for the response!

    It seems you found the example. Yes, it is giving an example of flawed reasoning. And yes, I did leave out the part at the very beginning. The passage, in its entirety, reads: "My car needs gas in order to run. Therefore, if I put some gas in the tank, my car will run."

    So does the first part, "My car needs gas in order to run" change things so significantly that the IF statement can no longer be counted upon to introduce a sufficient condition?

    A 1:1 comparison would be if the other example read: "You need to study in order to pass the LSAT. Therefore, if you study, you will beat the LSAT." Here, with the first statement preceding the second, we would then write the rule as B -> S instead of S -> B ? That doesn't seem right to me.

    When you say "change things so significantly," I don't think you're thinking about it in the right way. "If" always introduces the sufficient condition. The statement "my car needs gas in order to run" -- by virtue of the logical indicator "needs" -- proposes that gas is a necessary condition for the car's ability to run. The statement that "if I put some gas in the tank, my car will run" is an entirely different statement that cannot be inferred from the previous statement. It could be independently true, but that is irrelevant for the purpose of this question; it proposes a different relationship between gas and the car's ability to run. But again, the point is that gas being sufficient cannot be inferred from the statement that gas is necessary.

  • decesares1decesares1 Member
    85 karma

    @bmchap " said:
    When you say "change things so significantly," I don't think you're thinking about it in the right way. "If" always introduces the sufficient condition. The statement "my car needs gas in order to run" -- by virtue of the logical indicator "needs" -- proposes that gas is a necessary condition for the car's ability to run. The statement that "if I put some gas in the tank, my car will run" is an entirely different statement that cannot be inferred from the previous statement. It could be independently true, but that is irrelevant for the purpose of this question; it proposes a different relationship between gas and the car's ability to run. But again, the point is that gas being sufficient cannot be inferred from the statement that gas is necessary.

    I see. That makes sense -- sort of. It's a bit tricky though, isn't it? The logical indicator in one statement, the first statement, tells us one thing, and then the following conditional IF-statement tells us another thing. Hmm!

  • WinningHereWinningHere Member
    417 karma

    Without seeing the prompt, Sounds like the purpose of getting this question is to recognize the sufficient necessary flaw here. Is there an answer choice that addresses that?

  • decesares1decesares1 Member
    85 karma

    Yeah I think I understand now. The point of the prompt was to give an example of a logical reasoning flaw. The first sentence tells us that the car needs gas to run, and the second sentence comes to a conclusion that is, well, flawed. Not sure why this took me so long to understand. I get it now.

Sign In or Register to comment.