Weakening Conditionals

[voodoochild]

Ok thanks Steve. Just to make sure that I sum up our conversation correctly,

there is a subtle difference in meaning between

The only way to go to VA from NJ is to take I-95
AND
If you want to go to VA, then you take I-95.

Sentence#1 tells me about ONLY ONE necessary condition.
Sentence#2 can have 100 other necessary conditions. It's just that taking I-95 is one of the many possible necessary condition.

Please let me know whether my understanding is correct.

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response--I would not say that sums up our conversation.

To sum up our conversation, I would say this: on the LSAT, the test makers will be clear in relaying the information when cases call for only one possible route. So this should not be a concern.

On another note, are you planning on taking the June LSAT?

Thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Thanks Steve for your response. Can you please give me an example of the two conditions so that I can compare both the types of conditionals. (I went through this thread again just to make sure that there are no examples already mentioned. I know that you have given an example in which there could be more than one necessary condition). A comparative example will help to fix this in my brain, and also train my nervous system to be watchful for such traps. Thanks in advance.

Yes, I might take the June LSAT. However, I am more focused on using the LSAT material for the GMAT. Let's see.

Thanks

[Jon Denning]

I'll let Steve handle the question specific to your prior discussion, but reading that this is primarily being done with an eye toward the GMAT I should point something out that I think you'll enjoy hearing (and will hopefully let you focus on more relevant matters): there really isn't conditional reasoning like what you're asking about on the GMAT. The LSAT? For sure. But the GMAT doesn't tend to test it at all really, and certainly not in any similar fashion to the LSAT.

Granted, you can turn almost any statement into something conditional if you want to try to argue the point (including this sentence). But studying conditional reasoning and conditional relationships (diagramming suff vs nec, conditional chains, etc) isn't going to do much for you GMAT-wise. So focus elsewhere if you're in GMAT prep mode.

[voodoochild]

Thanks Jon. You are right. Right now, I am fixated on the GMAT. But, the LSAT is also something I am going to pursue. Once I cross 170 on the LSAT practice tests, I will register for the test. I am almost there, it's just that small logical things kill me. And then my brain keeps on thinking about such logical issues during the test, ultimately affecting my performance.

Let's wait for Steve's awesome response.

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Hey voodoochild,

I'm not certain what you are looking for exactly; can you please clarify exactly what you are trying to compare--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Hello Steve,

Can you please give me an example of the two conditions ("the only" necessary conditions vs. many possible necessary conditions, as discussed on this thread) so that I, or anyone reading this thread, can compare both the types of conditionals. (I went through this thread again just to make sure that there are no examples already mentioned. I know that you have given an example in which there could be more than one necessary condition). A comparative example will help to fix this in my brain, and also train my nervous system to be watchful for such traps. Thanks in advance.

In reponse to your following note:
Thanks for your response--I would not say that sums up our conversation.

To sum up our conversation, I would say this: on the LSAT, the test makers will be clear in relaying the information when cases call for only one possible route. So this should not be a concern.

On another note, are you planning on taking the June LSAT?

Thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

To reiterate a point I made earlier, "the only" introduces a necessary condition that does not, by default, exclude the possibility of other necessary conditions. For instance:

The only way to get from NYC to Philly is to take I-95.

This means you absolutely have to take I-95 to get from NYC to Philly, but would you need to take local roads as well? A tunnel or a bridge? Another highway in addition to I-95? You could be on I-95 for literally 5 minutes, and the conditional statement still holds true. It is identical in meaning to:

You must take I-95 to get from NYC to Philly.
You cannot get from NYC to Philly unless you take I-95... etc.

Likewise, if I told you that "the only way to get into HLS is to ace the LSAT," that doesn't mean there aren't other conditions you need to meet as well (high GPA, etc.).

If you wish to suggest that taking I-95 is all you need to do in order to get from NYC to Philly, you have to say just that:

Taking I-95 is all you need to do in order to get from NYC to Philly.

In that case, we know that there is nothing else you need to do (i.e. there are no other necessary conditions).

To sum up, the logic behind a conditional statement in the form of A B does not, by default, preclude the possibility that there are necessary conditions other than B that also need to be met. If you wish to suggest that B is the only necessary condition for A, you need to explicitly say that.