Analyze rule to previous rule or vice versa ?

[hskhader]

Hello, I have a question regarding strategy. I noticed in the logic bible, after diagraming basic inferences (e.g. linkage) the book then tends to analyze each rue against the rules before it (e.g. if there are 5 rules, the book will analyze rule 2 against rule 1 and rule 3 against rule 2 and 1 etc.
My question is, is it ok if I analyze rules against the rules that come after it? For instance, I analyze rule 1 against rule 2,3,4, and 5. After that I analyze rule 2 with rule 3,4,and 5. Etc...

[Dave Killoran]

Hi H,

Good question! First, let me address the idea that "the book will analyze rule 2 against rule 1 and rule 3 against rule 2 and 1 etc." that is not exactly what is happening. While that does occur at times, the general idea is to analyze the current rule against other rules that impact the current rule. So, if you are analyzing rule 3, you might compare it to rule 1, or you might compare it to rule 2 depending on what each rule contains. There is NOT a set guidelines that says to analyze it against the rules immediately in front of it

As for your question, the answer is YES! Remember, I like to read the entire scenario and rule set before diagramming anything, so when you hit rule 3, and you know rule 5 is related, you can jump to that rule. Just note that you will still need to make a thorough analysis of rule 5 at some point, and consider it on its own merits.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!