Does this sentence contain conditionality despite lacking any universal indicators?

Comments

• NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  February 2017 5320 karma

  @JustDoIt
• 1 Like

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  February 2017 27899 karma

  I believe the answer is technically no, but for the purposes of the LSAT, yes. The LSAT doesn't cut that deep on the logic, so I don't think the distinction is important within the context. I doubt you'd need to work with it in any kind of conditional chain or anything, but if it's useful to break it down in review, I think that's probably fine.
• JustDoIt Alum Member ⭐

  February 2017 edited February 2017 3112 karma

  I honestly still don't think it is a conditional. Even where JY indicates this as "GES (eas)," this is not necessarily a conditional statement. It is a declaration that is later used as part of a condition but it is not a condition in and of itself.

  There are quite a few questions that utilize conditionality (in some sense) without using conditional indicators. (https://7sage.com/lesson/skateboarding-in-river-park-strengthen-question/) They aren't exactly common but using a general understanding, you can link things up. I guess what I am saying is some questions will have a declarative statement, then another statement that links that declarative statement to another thing/claim. Thus, the latter statement would be the conditional that contains the declarative statement, but the former isn't on its own because it is dependent on the latter's conditionality.
• 1 Like

  Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  February 2017 edited February 2017 10806 karma

  Hey,

  So I don't think you need to worry about it because the logic does work, or at least LSAT wise. We know that having an attractive subway system makes good economic sense. So anytime that its an attractive subway system we can conclude that it makes good economic sense.

  In this way, I think its fine to draw an arrow and think of it as conditional. I think in a way it also helps to do this question as well.
  We know that EAS---> GES
  and if it makes GES---> we should do it
  Conclusion: We should do New Subway Cars.

  From our two previous premise we can inference: if EAS--> We should do it
  Then all we need make our conclusion true is connect this inference to our conclusion. If EAS then its necessary to have new subway cars.
• 1 Like

  NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  February 2017 5320 karma

  @Sami said:
  Hey,

  So I don't think you need to worry about it because the logic does work, or at least LSAT wise. We know that having an attractive subway system makes good economic sense. So anytime that its an attractive subway system we can conclude that it makes good economic sense.

  In this way, I think its fine to draw an arrow and think of it as conditional. I think in a way it also helps to do this question as well.
  We know that EAS---> GES
  and if it makes GES---> we should do it
  Conclusion: We should do New Subway Cars.

  From our two previous premise we can inference: if EAS--> We should do it
  Then all we need make our conclusion true is connect this inference to our conclusion. If EAS then its necessary to have new subway cars.

  I agree. That is exactly how I solved that problem. So while I understand that the sentence may not technically be logic, for the sake of the LSAT, it can be Lawgic. I definitely prefer using the logic chains over JY's "GES (eas)" shorthand... just helps me see the background principles better.
• 1 Like

  NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  May 2017 5320 karma

  @AngusMcGillis I think we have maxed out the nested replies in the comment section because it won't let me reply to you lol.

  But looking back on this question, I agree with everything Can'tGetRight, Sami, and JustDoIt say above. Strictly speaking, I don't think that statement is conditional because of the points JustDoIt made. However, for the purposes of LSAT, it's fine to use it as conditional. I think Sami and Can'tGetRight put it better than I did.

  I guess what it comes down to is that the LSAT uses strict formal logic in some cases. But other times, it's a lot messier. When it's messy we can bend the hard logic rules to visualize our understanding.
• AngusMcGillis Member

  May 2017 403 karma

  @jkatz1488 said:
  @AngusMcGillis I think we have maxed out the nested replies in the comment section because it won't let me reply to you lol.

  But looking back on this question, I agree with everything Can'tGetRight, Sami, and JustDoIt say above. Strictly speaking, I don't think that statement is conditional because of the points JustDoIt made. However, for the purposes of LSAT, it's fine to use it as conditional. I think Sami and Can'tGetRight put it better than I did.

  I guess what it comes down to is that the LSAT uses strict formal logic in some cases. But other times, it's a lot messier. When it's messy we can bend the hard logic rules to visualize our understanding.

  Ok, great! Thanks for the response and link to the discussion. This is definitely messy, and J.Y.'s explanation made it even muddier for me. But this clears things up for me, thanks!