TLSHome Law SchoolAdmissions LawSchools LawStudents TLSForums
 Forum Archives Index     Forum Archives Search     Leave Archives and Visit Active TLS Forums

 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]
Author Message
 Post subject: Question about Conditional Reasoning QuestionsPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:21 am

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:53 am
Archived Posts: 12
.

Last edited by 77to101 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Question about Conditional Reasoning QuestionsPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:26 am

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 am
Archived Posts: 274
77to101 wrote:
Like many of you, I've been using the PS LR Bible to study and I've run into something that I can't quite figure out on my own. If you know where I got confused, can you help me out and explain it to me?

Here we go: In the weaken section, the bible gives us a question that essentially says: "x -> y (conditional)"; Weaken this. The correct answer choice says "x happened and z happened (as in y didn't happen)". I understand how this weakens the original conclusion x -> y. If you can show x (the sufficient) happening and y (the necessary) didn't happen, this would weaken the conclusion (since the conclusion says if x then y).

Where I'm confused is why another answer choice is wrong. The other answer choice essentially says "y -> not x" Why is this wrong? The contrapositive of this is the same thing as the correct answer choice (x -> not y).

What I'm trying to do is figure out what the answer commonly is and what the trap answer commonly is in weaken questions that have conditional conclusions. If the conclusion is x->y, I should actively search for the answer choice that says x->not y. According to the question, I should avoid y->not x, but that doesn't seem to make sense.

I'm not sure how copyright stuff works, but I'm referring to the question on page 180 of the bible. If this could get me in trouble, let me know asap so I can edit my post.

So, can someone complete this in conditional terms? "If the conclusion of a weaken question is x->y, I should actively search for the answer choice that says x->not y. I should avoid the common trap that says __________".

The contrapositive of x-->y is......... not y-->not x
The contrapositive of your answer choice is x--> not y

Make sense?
If not, PM me the question in more detail.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Question about Conditional Reasoning QuestionsPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:33 am

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 am
Archived Posts: 274
Furthermore, more often than not, you should not need the x-->y stuff for weaken questions.

Isolate the conclusion and find the answer choice that makes the conclusion not likely or impossible.

Isolating conclusions can be tricky when you first start. I scoffed at the notion after studying for months but when I started doing this for strengthen/weaken question my accuracy went from (estimated) 90% to 99%. For me, it just helped.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Question about Conditional Reasoning QuestionsPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:34 am

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:53 am
Archived Posts: 12
.

Last edited by 77to101 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Question about Conditional Reasoning QuestionsPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:49 am

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 am
Archived Posts: 274
My bad, I misunderstood.

We're talking about carpet manufacturers right?

If so, then I strongly suggest isolating conclusion and finding the answer that makes gaining market share possible w/o purchasing competitors and more aggressive marketing.

A - has nothing to do with anything
B - strengthens
C - the LRB gives a better explanation than I could
D - CR!
E - again, has nothing to do with anything

the last 9 words of the CR make it the BEST answer, the one that DIRECTLY attacks the conclusion. forget about the conditionals, they just waste time 97% of the time.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Question about Conditional Reasoning QuestionsPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:56 am

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:53 am
Archived Posts: 12
cool, that clears things up a bit. thanks!

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]

 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]