Any instance where the sufficient occurs without the necessary shows the conditional relationship is not true, so saying some talk without being male would undermine it, as would saying all talk without being male (assuming "Parrot" in your diagram there means "parrots that can talk").
The difference is that the test makers tend not to just directly deny the necessary condition someone believes, because it's too obvious. Instead what tends to happen is that an exception is shown where the necessary didn't occur when the sufficient did, which is equally damaging to the conditional relationship, but not as easy for most people to spot because it's more subtle.
#22 - For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/jonmdenning
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/jon-denning
I actually went back and read all the comment, and it totally makes more sense now, that I went into this lesson more in depth.
There are still a couple of questions:
1. However, the only thing that does not make sense, when they say a definition, for the answer choice, that would mean that it happens all the time correct? if I define B to happen every time A happens than, conditional and definition must mean sort of the same idea/thing, just different wording?
2. Also, what do we do with the premise that noble class--> legal status? Is this premise not used to answer the question?
3. For answer choice B, does this answer want us to assume that because there was no noble class, that there was no dominant class?
4. For answer choice C, in the stimulus we have noble class---> legal recognition (heredity and title). So, this answer is saying just because it has legal status it is not enough to be considered a noble class? Am I understanding it correctly?
5. For answer choice D, in the stimulus they give us the facts, feudalism happened than later nobility happend, they never mentioned that feudalism caused nobility to happen. In other words, because one event followed the other, it does not mean that the first fall of feudalism, caused nobility to happen. Another reason, that it is wrong, I doubt it to be the only reason for the rise of nobility, it is not stated specifically in the stimulus to be this way. Did I get it sort of close to why this answer choice is wrong?
6. For answer choice E, it is very similar to D, just because nobility followed feudalism it does not mean that fedudalism was the cause for the creation of nobility, there could be many other reasons. Hope got close to it?
Thanks in advance!
Thanks for your diligent efforts to engage this question!
1) As you've written it, yes, here conditional and definitional are similar, if not synonymous.
2) If a premise does not show up in the answer choices, and is not necessary to find an answer choice that logically follows, then yes, you wouldn't need it at all. In this instance, legal status is one of two necessary conditions for the sufficient condition that a noble class can exist. The last sentence indicates that the legal transfer of titles came after feudalism. Since, if we assume the legal transfer of titles is equivalent to legal status (a reasonable assumption), this means that a noble class was not previously possible, this is part of the reasoning needed to indicate that feudalism pre-dated the existence of a noble class.
3) In essence yes, there is no reference to a dominant class to the stimulus, so the only way you might choose this answer would be if you made an assumption not supported by the passage.
4) Yes, you're understanding correctly. Legal status is a necessary condition. If it is met, that does not tell us whether the sufficient condition, noble class, is met or not.
5) Yes, in essence, there is nothing in the stimulus that supports this causal interpretation.
6) There's nothing at all in the passage that supports this answer. The question is whether a noble class must have pre-existed feudalism, not the other way around.
Thus, just to follow-up
2) if I had to diagram it would be no legal status-->no noble class?
Also, I am still a bit confused with C, legal status is a necessary condition, so it is wrong in here because they are trying to make it a sufficient condition?
I wanted to understand what gave away that the necessary conditions for a noble class was only the legal process and not the "Titles that indicate superior and the inheritance of such titles". The passage says that noble class is in existence unless both of these are met and for that reason it appears to be a claim with two necessary conditions and not one. Thank you.
Hi Lt Poulson,
Thanks, this is another good question.
I think, basically, that it is not important whether you view the necessary conditions to support a noble class as one term or two. In other words, we could rightfully say that the rule tells us that the noble class cannot exist without legal saction, or:
NC --> Legal sanction.
However, we could also express the same rule with two necessary conditions instead, by stating that the existence of the noble class requires legal titles indicating superior status and legal support for the inheritance of such titles, or:
NC --> superior titles under the law AND inheritance of such titles under the law.
I think, however, that these two versions of the rule are effectively similar. In other words, i think that if we were to define what a 'legal sanction' looks like in this context, we would say that it must include legal support for titles of superiority, and legal support for the inheritance of those titles. Therefore, whether we call it by one name or by two, it means the same thing, and which version of the rule we actually employ in answering this question should not impact our answer choice.
I think that you will find as you continue to work with conditional reasoning that this instance is just one of many in which there is flexibility in the way we can define our conditional reasoning terms; what matters is not necessarily how we break down or abbreviate our terms, but instead how they relate to each other. In other words, it doesn't matter if you say there are two requirements for nobility or one; what matters is that you can see that these requirements (or this requirement) was not met until the twelfth century, and therefore it is incorrect to say that feudalism existed in the eighth.
Does that make it clearer?
That makes it clearer. At the time, I got distracted by the two things (NS and inheritance) and didn't recognize the sanctions by law are effectively an umbrella for both statements. Therefore, the legal status is necessary condition for the group to be considered a social class. Still, It is somewhat difficult to equate a "distinct legal status" with the "legal sanctioning of noble status and inheritance of titles".
Hi there, could you diagram the contrapositive in this one?
There are two arguments presented here: The first is attributed to "the writers who first gave feudalism its name," and it can be diagrammed as Feudalism --> Noble Class. The contrapositive there would be something like, "without a noble class, you can't have feudalism."
The counterargument, introduced by the author, can be diagrammed as Noble Class --> Legally Sanctioned Titles and Inheritance. The contrapositive there would be, "without Legally Sanctioned Titles and Inheritance, you can't have a Noble Class." The logical extension of that contrapositive, connected with the contrapositive of the first argument of "the writers" would lead to the conclusion: "without Legally Sanctioned Titles and Inheritance, you can't have Feudalism."
Then the author indicates that Feudalism DID exist at a time when there were NO legally sanctioned Titles and Inheritance. So, the author concludes that "the writers" were wrong in their initial argument that Feudalism requires a Noble Class.
Hope that helps!