gilchristh wrote:Okay, so I have a question for you guys that is totally un-GULC related (well, other than the fact that we all attend/will attend GULC). I'm writing an LSAT course and I'm working on a session on advanced propositional logic (a.k.a. formal logic, syllogisms, etc.). The first session in it covers the basics--translating, combining, contraposing, sufficient and necessary, etc.--and the most common applications of it on the LSAT. So right now I'm lost in this sea of logic... I want to be thorough without going overboard. I'm going to cover some really tough games and some really tough LR questions that use propositional logic, but in addition to the hard applications, how much theory should I go into?
So basically, I think what I'm trying to ask is:
1) What did you NOT understand about PL on the LSAT that you wish you had learned?
2) What do you feel were the most valuable complex PL concepts you learned?
I mean, you don't have to know the phrases "affirming the disjunct," "denying the conjunct," "affirming the consequent," "denying the antecedent," or the terms for a number of other fallacies and concepts to kick ass on the LSAT... but do you think that at least being exposed to the names of some of these concepts would be valuable? Or should I just keep the focus on understanding the logic of these concepts it without getting into the names of them?
I don't want to ask this in the main forum because I don't want to get a big glut of random opinions, plus I wanna keep it under wraps right now, so mum's the word, k?
I understand that the terms are confusing for most people. I personally like things like that because of how I categorize new information. When I was taking German a few years ago as an adult student, I had a lot of trouble when the instructor was simply telling us how things worked. When he finally had to go into hardcore grammar, I was happy. Everyone else groaned when they heard "separable prefix verbs" but it really helped me understand exactly what I was dealing with.
I think it really all depends on what level of categorization the learner is comfortable with.
I did not have a background in PL when I took the LSAT and I think knowing those concepts would have helped me. I do have a background in cognitive science and linguistics, which is why I like this sort of thing. I'm probably an outlier. But there are people who will appreciate the concept names.