Take the statement (drawn from an actual stimulus) that says "the habit of volunteering cannot be said to have been fostered in a person who has not yet volunteered for anything" and put it into a conditional statement. Would it be if Habit of Volunteering then Volunteered? I try to see what is indicated as the necessary condition in translating into conditional language from statements without indicators. Is this a good idea? Are there other senses or intuitive skills you can use to translate complex sentences?
Comments
Learning conditional logic may be very important to the LSAT, but those who do very very well on the test ultimately learn conditional logic so that they can read complex statements like that one without having to translate it.
Ask yourself if you truly "get" the sentence more if you change it into "if ...then..." form. The above appears way too complex when translated that way.
What happens when, in a different question, you don't 'just get it'? What happens if that statement is about quantum physics terms that you've never heard of before, or maybe some characteristic of a rare African insect with a 36-letter name, instead of volunteering? People with toolboxes still have their tools to utilize; people who relied solely on 'just getting it' just sit and stare.
This is different than saying that mapping is mandatory for you to answer that question, because that's not necessarily true. The strategy you use for the question is dependent on the context. But if you don't map that statement because you don't think it's necessary for you to answer that question, it should be a reasoned decision based on your understanding of that sentence and its relationship with the other information you're given, not a product of laziness or confusion. Complexity is not an excuse for complacency, and intuition is built from your explicit knowledge. If you don't have the explicit knowledge, your intuition is nothing more than an educated guess. Garbage in, garbage out.
TL;DR: You may not always utilize mapping in your actual tackling of the question, but that doesn't excuse you from knowing how it works.
For the record, your translation is correct. No Volunteer -> No Habit Fostered, and the contrapositive is what you state.
I understand what OP is seeking, but technically the term "intuitive skills" seems impossible by definition (intuitive = arrived at without reason or evidence) if not inherently contradictory (skill = an ability acquired via learning).
Regardless, the solution is the same: Learn the tools and, ironically, you may then find that you've now acquired the "intuitive skills."
The habit of volunteering = H
Volunteered for anything = V
Original Statement:
~ H if ~ V
unfix the 'if':
~ V > ~ H
contrapose:
H > V
That is, If someone has a habit of volunteering, then they must have volunteered before.
You end up with a wonderfully clean conditional at the end! Who knew!