Diagramming Conditionals without indicator words

Comments

• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 2398 karma

  For PT 3, S2, #3:
  
  A can be diagrammed as "C-->MPFBC", that is "if you are a child, then you can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics." This does have an indicator: the word "all." All introduces the sufficient condition; for example, "All apples are fruits" can be diagrammed as A-->F. Or, "All dogs have spots" is: "D-->HS".
  
  The reason why A is incorrect is that the author is not assuming anything about ALL children; the conclusion is only about North American children, so it does not have to be true that all children can be made physically fit only if they participate in calisthenics programs.
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 edited August 2015 2398 karma

  @ncesomonu said:
  However, I diagrammed answer choice A as All children can be made physically fit---> by daily calisthenics
  

  Sidenote: this would read as "If all children can be made physically fit, then they can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics," which does not capture the meaning of A.
• ncesomonu Alum Member

  August 2015 27 karma

  Thanks so much for the speedy reply! I see why A is incorrect. For PT 56 Section 3 # 18 "Fund-raiser" my next question is how would you diagram the conclusion "most charities could probably increase the amount of money they raise through donations by giving donors the right to vote"?
  
  I see that for the last question "all" is an indicator but for this question there doesn't seem to be any
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 2398 karma

  First, diagramming this question may not be the best way to get the right answer. The author jumps from donors feeling less of an emotional connection by not having the opportunity to vote to increasing the amount of money by giving donors the right to vote. So we are looking for some sort of link between emotional connection and donors' propensity to donate money. (Also, because the conclusion introduces a new variable it is a good indicator that we need to find an answer that has to do with increasing/affecting the amount of money that donors will give to charities.)
  
  Answer choice E does this for us. If the emotional connection donors feel to a charity (which can be gained through voting) does not affect the amount of money they are willing to give, then the conclusion falls apart.
  
  On the diagramming side:
  
  Charities --most--> Probably can increase the amount of money they raise by giving donors the right to vote.
  
  But as you can see, this isn't really helpful; it's just diagramming for diagramming's sake.
• ncesomonu Alum Member

  August 2015 27 karma

  Thanks so much again c.janson35! One last question, I promise. On PT 26 #21 "The companies that are" I had a difficult time diagramming a sentence without indicators. The premise "It is expensive to teach people software that demands the memorization of unfamiliar commands" I diagrammed this statement as expensive--->teach ppl software that demands.
  
  Upon review I realized that this diagram did not get me to the correct answer (which was the gap if successful then it must be bought by prime purchasers; however, the reverse of the diagram above, teach ppl software that demands---> expensive, got me to this gap..
  
  How would you gauge that expensive is the nec? Is it because you can reason that if it demands the memorization of unfamiliar commands it must be expensive
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 edited August 2015 2398 karma

  This is a question that you actually stand to gain by diagramming it. First of all, this is a sufficient assumption question, not a NA, so our task is a little different. We are looking for an answer that would allow us to properly infer the conclusion. Let's get started with the diagramming:
  
  1st Sentence: ET-->/PPBS
  If introduces the sufficient condition here (I rephrased costs of training staff to use it as expensive to teach to keep the variables consistent throughout the premises; this is actually key for us to build our conditional chain, and it rests on the realization that "costs of training staff to use software are high" is essentially the same as "expensive to teach people a software"; costs are high=expensive; training=teaching)
  
  2nd: DMU--> ET
  "We know that it is expensive to teach people a software that demands memorization of unfamiliar commands" means: if a software DMU commands, then it is ET.
  
  3rd (conclusion sentence): S--> /DMU
  "To be successful, a software cannot require DMU" means: if a software is successful, it must be true that it does not DMU commands.
  
  So we have to use 1 and 2, along with a sufficient assumption, to prove 3:
  
  DMU-->ET-->/PPBS
  
  Conclusion: DMU-->/S (the contra positive of the 3rd sentence)
  
  Because our sufficient variables line up, we just need to add a /S to the end of our conditional chain to transitively prove the conclusion:
  
  DMU-->ET-->/PPBS-->/S
  
  The new relationship above, /PPBS-->/S, is out sufficient assumption! It allows us to prove the conclusion.
  
  Luckily, C is the contrapositive of this new premise, so we know that we did our work correctly. C reads: S-->PPBS, if a software is successful, then prime purchasers will buy it.
• QQ ILLSAT Member

  August 2015 34 karma

  Hi guys,
  
  Your reply is so helpful. A follow up question, shall we diagram question when there is no clear logic indicator? Also, when the premises says that B is causes by A, could we write as A-->B? Is conditional logic and causation the same thing? Thank you so much.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 7965 karma

  @"QQ ILLSAT" said:
  shall we diagram question when there is no clear logic indicator?
  

  I would say no I certainly don't.