-  Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:23 am
					 #40662
							   
										
										
					
					
							Hi. 
as Dave and many of staff knows, I developed a habit of analyzing any speeches I hear into LSAT terms these days because I am so into do well in LSAT. anyways, I studied politics as undergraduate; I have a habit of listening to prior public office figures' speeches time to time.
In this video clip:
 
President Bill Clinton : To be fair for president George , some of it(budget defecit) was gonna happen due to 9/11 and need to go to Afghanistan
2:55-03:00 , https://vimeo.com/44744329
ever since I heard this statement, I felt conditional relationship can be made. Originally, I was not going to ask cuz I do not want my bad habit of thinking everything in LSAT terms ; asking whether I am thinking correctly , then bothering other people due to my excessive thinking. which Dave kindly referred that I am overdoing it and got me in troubles prior. But it has been rining in my brain in longest time and driving me crazy; so I musk ask. (Sorry)
is it correct to analyze as which of the following manner
1. Fair ----> president George.
or
2. Fairpresident George some of it(budget deficit)  was gonna happen due to 9/11 and need to go to Afghanistan
  some of it(budget deficit)  was gonna happen due to 9/11 and need to go to Afghanistan
or
3. The conditional nature in this relationship is not that strong anyways that it is not worth bothering to create a conditional relationship in actual LSAT if I see such a statement .
					
										
					  															  								 as Dave and many of staff knows, I developed a habit of analyzing any speeches I hear into LSAT terms these days because I am so into do well in LSAT. anyways, I studied politics as undergraduate; I have a habit of listening to prior public office figures' speeches time to time.
In this video clip:
President Bill Clinton : To be fair for president George , some of it(budget defecit) was gonna happen due to 9/11 and need to go to Afghanistan
2:55-03:00 , https://vimeo.com/44744329
ever since I heard this statement, I felt conditional relationship can be made. Originally, I was not going to ask cuz I do not want my bad habit of thinking everything in LSAT terms ; asking whether I am thinking correctly , then bothering other people due to my excessive thinking. which Dave kindly referred that I am overdoing it and got me in troubles prior. But it has been rining in my brain in longest time and driving me crazy; so I musk ask. (Sorry)
is it correct to analyze as which of the following manner
1. Fair ----> president George.
or
2. Fairpresident George
 some of it(budget deficit)  was gonna happen due to 9/11 and need to go to Afghanistan
  some of it(budget deficit)  was gonna happen due to 9/11 and need to go to Afghanistanor
3. The conditional nature in this relationship is not that strong anyways that it is not worth bothering to create a conditional relationship in actual LSAT if I see such a statement .


 
											
 How do we know that? The use of the word "some" in the middle of the statement. That pulls down the force of the statement into something far less useful in typical conditional terms. A good example where you can't put a square peg (this statement) in a round hole (conditional reasoning/diagram)!
  How do we know that? The use of the word "some" in the middle of the statement. That pulls down the force of the statement into something far less useful in typical conditional terms. A good example where you can't put a square peg (this statement) in a round hole (conditional reasoning/diagram)!