"All that is required" Sufficiency or Necessity indicator?

Comments

• TimLSAT180 Alum Member

  March 2017 619 karma

  I'm going to take a stab here and say that my instincts tell me that the sentence is translated into EJ -> ROW. If you think hard about the actual meaning of the sentence, it's basically saying that redistribution of wealth is required to create conditions of economic justice. If someone else wants to weigh in on this, please do! Hope this helps
• 1 Like

  dcdcdcdcdc Alum Member

  March 2017 edited March 2017 382 karma

  I think it may actually be the other way around: ROW is sufficient to guarantee the conditions of EJ.

  If you don' thave EJ, then you did not have ROW. However, if you do have EJ, then you may or may not have ROW as it is sufficient but not necessary. This example is tough, because EJ as envisioned typically requires some form of movement of wealth as it is currently distributed (whether by force or voluntarily or by taxation, etc.), but perhaps we could consider an example where money or traditional forms of wealth are phased out and each person is equal economical. There has been no ROW, yet we have EJ and thus, ROW is not necessary for EJ.

  In other words, this would translate as "ROW is alone enough to yield conditions for EJ"
• 1 Like

  Q.E.D Alum Member

  March 2017 556 karma

  I'm with you @TimLSAT180

  The sentence says it's required. It's easy to get paranoid with LSAC constantly throwing verbal tricks at you, but sometimes you just gotta say "the sentence says x" and move on.

  What I find tricky about this one is that the meaning of the written sentence is different from the typical meaning of an utterance of the same sentence. We often say "all you have to do is x," meaning "x alone is sufficient, nothing else is required." "You only have to donate $10 a month to feed a hungry child." Of course, you could also feed a hungry child by raising awareness through your blog or by genetically engineering a more robust crop.

  --digression: objectivity

  Tricky as LSAC may be, they have to play fair. It's no surprise that one of the very early RC passages was about Reader Response Theory, a thesis to the effect that literary meaning is largely subjective. That would present serious probs for LSAC, since they need their answer choices to be objective. Interesting to go back and read that passage with the test objectivity problem in mind.

  ---digression: logical form

  Interestingly, you need modal resources to say what we normally mean by "all that is required...," interpreted in the usual way as "A is suff. for B and nothing else is nec."

  In classical logic, you use the material conditional ('->') (MC). That's what you learn in the CC. It's not very close to natural language conditionals, though. You would normally be inclined to express the above sentence this way:
  (A->B) & ~(B->C)

  Where C is any proposition, including A. You would normally use propositional quantification to say that, but I'm afraid this is prob confusing enough already.

  The prob is that ~(B->C), in classical logic, means that B is true and C is false. But we're just trying to say C isn't necessary, not that it's false. That's the issue with the MC. Look up paradoxes of material implication for more intriguing examples of the MC's shortcomings.

  Those paradoxes motivated developments in modal logic of necessity. This language allows you to say e.g. that B doesn't necessarily imply C without asserting anything about the truth of B or C. So the right way to express the colloquial meaning of the utterance discussed above is this:
  (A->B) & ~□(B->C)

  Where C is any proposition.

  I release you.
• 5everLSATing Member

  March 2017 22 karma

  Thanks for the responses, everyone! So then, just to sum up, we can conclude that if "A is all that is necessary for B", then "A is sufficient for B". Correct?
• 2 Likes

  Heart Shaped Box Alum Member ⭐

  March 2017 edited March 2017 2426 karma

  I second @TimLSAT180 as well.

  "All that is required to create conditions of economic justice (EJ) is the redistribution of wealth (ROW)"

  I don't think "all" is an indicator in this case but an emphasis on what is being required: ROW, hence EJ ---> ROW.

  However, I don't think we could say: if "A is all that is necessary for B", then "A is sufficient for B".

  If A is necessary (required) for B, then A is in the necessary condition, not sufficient. (B ---> A)
  "All" again is just fluff in this case, just to emphasize on what is necessary/required: A.
• Q.E.D Alum Member

  March 2017 556 karma

  what @"Heart Shaped Box" said
• apublicdisplay Alum Member

  March 2017 edited March 2017 696 karma

  Just play around with the sentence to determine the meaning. Ask yourself, what is required to create conditions of EJ? ROW is required. Or just rearrange the sentence. "In order to create conditions of EJ, ROW is required." EJ --> ROW.
• MapleSarahp Member

  March 2017 edited March 2017 125 karma

  To put it simply, the sentence is just trying to say:
  "ROW is required to create EJ."

  Badaboom, badabang. ROW = necessary condition.
• 1 Like

  JustDoIt Alum Member ⭐

  March 2017 3112 karma

  The way that I read "all that is required" is "the only thing you need for EJ is ROW." In other words, EJ --> ROW.

  The reason all that is required kind of indicates sufficiency isn't the "required" or the "all," it's the "for." It's like saying "For A to occur, you gotta have B." So you have A --> B. It's really no different from saying all that is required "for" EJ. Which brings me back to my original point, which is for EJ to occur (EJ -->) you must have ROW (EJ --> ROW)

  Hope this helps!
• 5everLSATing Member

  March 2017 22 karma

  I see. But wouldn't interpreting the sentence in this manner ( EJ-->ROW) render answer choice E as a "Must Be True" statement, and therefore the correct answer choice?

  The stimulus reads: "Unless our nation redistributes wealth, we will be unable to alleviate economic injustices....." (/ROW-->/EJ; Contrapositive: EJ-->ROW)
  [ PT 15, Section 3, Question 7].

  Knowing E is not the correct answer, I am still hesitant to interpret ROW as the necessary condition here.