## Formal Logic Additive Inference Question

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
spets

Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:44 pm

### Formal Logic Additive Inference Question

Hi, I'm working on PS's section on formal logic and there is one problem that I don't quite understand:

E <--|--> F --> G --> H

I understand why F --> H and G some E are inferences, but the answer key also includes H some E. I'm not sure how this inference can be made since it shouldn't be able to go against the arrow, even with the inherent inference (H some G).

Knock

Posts: 5151
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

### Re: Formal Logic Additive Inference Question

spets wrote:Hi, I'm working on PS's section on formal logic and there is one problem that I don't quite understand:

E <--|--> F --> G --> H

I understand why F --> H and G some E are inferences, but the answer key also includes H some E. I'm not sure how this inference can be made since it shouldn't be able to go against the arrow, even with the inherent inference (H some G).

You have to combine inferences, I think. I'm a bit rusty at this, but let me give it a shit.

F--->H (All F's are H)
+
F<--/-->E (No F's are E)

= (well if All F's are H, and No F's are E, some H's can't be E's)

H <some / > E (some H's can't be E's)

Apologies if this is incorrect, like I said i'm super rusty and am in need of a formal logic review.

theZeigs

Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm

### Re: Formal Logic Additive Inference Question

Knockglock wrote:
spets wrote:Hi, I'm working on PS's section on formal logic and there is one problem that I don't quite understand:

E <--|--> F --> G --> H

I understand why F --> H and G some E are inferences, but the answer key also includes H some E. I'm not sure how this inference can be made since it shouldn't be able to go against the arrow, even with the inherent inference (H some G).

You have to combine inferences, I think. I'm a bit rusty at this, but let me give it a shit.

F--->H (All F's are H)
+
F<--/-->E (No F's are E)

= (well if All F's are H, and No F's are E, some H's can't be E's)

H <some / > E (some H's can't be E's)

Apologies if this is incorrect, like I said i'm super rusty and am in need of a formal logic review.

lolz for bold

Knock is correct. Maybe draw a venn diagram. F is contained by G which is contained by H. The E group does not overlap with F at all, so no matter how you draw it while abiding by these rules, you will have some H's that are not E's (namely, those H's that are in the subgroup G and the subgroup F). This is true even if you make the entire group of G and H into E's while omitting F's.

I did a very half ass job drawing it, note the bottom red does overlap with the F a little bit but meh, like I said, half-assed.