to the top

How come To Be is not listed as a sufficient Indicator

lathlee
LSAT Destroyer
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:53 pm
Points: 563

Dear Admin,

One of the question i asked about prior invovling how come power score failed to include To Be as a sufficient condition indicator?

I would like to know why? Is it because it appear infrequent ?
Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 2104
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:01 pm
Points: 1,920

There are many conditional indicators beyond the ones we listed in our materials, lathlee, although many of them are implied or inherent in the ones we did list. "To be" is like an extension of "In order to". We listed the most common ones that we see on the test, but don't be constrained by that list. Instead, use it as a jumping off point to understand the nature of conditional relationships. Most of them will fall into the broad category of a "category/characteristic" relationship - the sufficient condition sets up a category (like "people who prefer Chicago style pizza"), and the necessary condition identifies a characteristic of that category ("have no idea what real pizza is"). Here are some examples:

In order to be a Doctor (category=Doctor), you must first attend medical school (characteristic of Doctors=went to med school)

Dogs with curly fur (category) are adorable (characteristic)

All Ohio State fans (category) are a little upset at the loss to Oklahoma (characteristic)

Watch for that kind of relationship, and the indicator words won't matter quite so much. Here's one that is a little more subtle, perhaps, because it doesn't have the obvious indicators, although they are implied:

Mahogany tables are beautiful and long-lasting

Go ahead and add "to be" to the list in your book, if you like, as it does occur with some frequency, but then go beyond the list and look for these sorts of category/characteristic relationships to widen your understanding of conditional relationships. Remember not to force it, though, and don't make everything conditional when you often don't need to do so in order to understand and attack the argument.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
lathlee
LSAT Destroyer
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:53 pm
Points: 563

Hi. Adam, I am sorry to say this, but your answer made me even more confused about sufficient and negation conditional relationship.
Most of them will fall into the broad category of a "category/characteristic" relationship - the sufficient condition sets up a category


Point number 1:
Dogs with curly fur (category) are adorable (characteristic)

(I am quoting this cuz doesn't contain any traditional or well known conditional indicator and this one 's conditional relationship nature seems little weaker , but if shown in LSAT questionnaires, compared to likes of In order to be a Doctor (category=Doctor), you must first attend medical school (characteristic of Doctors=went to med school) AM I correct to think like that?
Dogs with curly fur (category) are adorable (characteristic)


Point number 2:
So any sentence or incomplete sentence's composing relationships that are composed of category/characteristic ..........and category is sufficient condition and characteristic is necessary condition also whenever the students see such pattern then should recognize and immediately try to form the conditional relationship in brain or diagram ? I never learned about this trick/ chracteristic about conditional relationships ever.
James Finch
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:06 pm
Points: 405

Hi Lathlee,

I find it's helpful to think of conditional reasoning as one of two categories:

1. If something (thing A) happens, then another thing (thing B) will always happen. Contrapositively, if thing B does not happen, then thing A cannot happen either.

2. Thing A always have characteristic B, therefore if we have thing A then we have characteristic B. Contrapositively, if we do not have characteristic B, then we do not have Thing A.

Beyond memorizing and using the signifier words, you can think about what is necessary for the other thing to be true. Adam's dog example falls into category 2, as we have a characteristic (adorableness) that is true of all examples of a certain thing (dogs with curly hair), which means that the characteristic (adorableness) is the necessary condition for the sufficient condition (dogs with curly hair.) So we know that when we have a dog with curly hair, it is adorable, but we do not know that all adorable dogs have curly hair.

I hope this helps!
lathlee
LSAT Destroyer
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:53 pm
Points: 563

Hi. James Finch, can you elaborate the category Number 2 and how it is conditional relationship nature?
lathlee
LSAT Destroyer
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:53 pm
Points: 563

so are you saying I am a boy, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, and Water is made of Two Hydrogen molecules.

should be expressed in the conditional relationship in LSAT logical reasoning? isn't that overgeneralization of conditional relationship ? Dave said there is warning for over conditionalizing. Although "Water is made of Two Hydrogen molecule." I can see the clear link of conditional nature of this cuz -- Two hydrogen molecules :arrow: -- Water

but let's say I am a boy and Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time. I don't think conditional nature is strong enough or should be expressed in LSAT questioning as the conditional relationship.
lathlee
LSAT Destroyer
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:53 pm
Points: 563

Hi. Can i plz get answer for this. Thia issue has been driving me crazy
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:18 pm
Points: 2,615

Hi Lathlee,

James was pointing out how conditionality works, he wasn't saying that everything that falls into a category needs to be diagrammed. For example, "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time" is conditional, and if you were going to diagram it, you could. But should you? No way! This was my point earlier to you: just because something is conditional does not mean it should be diagrammed or that it's all that helpful to think about in purely conditional terms. "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time" is a perfect example of that. I'd never diagram it because it's so limited, but I would understand that if I see MJ, then I know I'm seeing the greatest. Does that help?

Thanks!
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
James Finch
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:06 pm
Points: 405

Hi Lathlee,

Just to follow up on what Dave said, it isn't necessary to turn a normal statement that falls into either of the categories I described into a conditional relationship unless the argument itself proceeds via conditional reasoning. While uncommon, there are stimuli that don't contain any signifiers despite having a conditional argument, and many students struggle to identify necessary and sufficient conditions, so having a good grasp on how to do so is important.

Hope this helps!
lathlee
LSAT Destroyer
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:53 pm
Points: 563

Hi. I am just making sure. If there is a statement like in LSAT question,

Water is made of H2O.

the conditional nature might invovle significantly in the question stem's premises and conclusion dynamics,

but this can turn out to be conditional relationship

as If Water :arrow: there are two hydrogen and one Oxgen atoms exist