Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby secretad » Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:55 pm

I know that you guys remember the infamous principle question about "a statement is wholly truthful only if it is true and made without deception."

The other part of the moralist's statements was that:


Deceive or Refrained from Clarifying ---> Lie

So our two principles was that one and...

WT ---> T and ~D

The key to acing this question was knowing that you could not conclude what was wholly truthful. You could also not conclude what was not a lie.

I understand that situation but I am having trouble with a similar concept.

Here is a theoretical problem:

"The police officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon. That police officer was rightfully punished."

What principle would help to justify the officer's actions?

Let us say that you eliminate all but two answers and these are the ones you are left with during the test.

A) An officer should be punished only if the officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon.

B) An officer should be punished if the officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon.


A) Should be punished ---> Officer shot person without weapon

B) Officer shot person without weapon ---> Should be punished

I feel that B is correct but I do not know what to make of choice A.

My question is can we have a sufficient condition of should be punished in this case? Could a principle be established by starting off with the prescriptive language in the sufficient spot?

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby Jeffort » Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:16 pm

In your example (B) would be correct. (A) would not because it would require you engage in flawed reasoning (mistaken reversal). The facts from the premise establish the truth of the sufficient condition of the principle in (B), therefore allowing you to conclude that the necessary condition is true. Simple as that.

The same thing applies as to the above situation you described as well as the other similar principle examples you posted in other threads.

I think you are over complicating the basic conditional reasoning these principle questions are based on. The same rules of valid vs. flawed methods of reasoning using conditional statements applies to principle questions as does to any other type of question with a conditional.

You can never validly reason your way to concluding that a sufficient condition of a principle is true since that would be making a mistaken reversal, nor can you validly reason your way to concluding that a necessary condition(s) are not true since that would require mistaken negation.

Principle questions that provide you with a principle that is a conditional premise are just jazzed up conditional reasoning questions in terms of them requiring you to do fact sensitive analysis to figure out if you have available facts to apply the principle to, and if so, are they facts that allow you to apply the principle in a logically valid way to form a valid conclusion.

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby secretad » Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:35 pm

Jeffort wrote:In your example (B) would be correct. (A) would not because it would require you engage in flawed reasoning (mistaken reversal). The facts from the premise establish the truth of the sufficient condition of the principle in (B), therefore allowing you to conclude that the necessary condition is true. Simple as that.

The same thing applies as to the above situation you described as well as the other similar principle examples you posted in other threads.

I think you are over complicating the basic conditional reasoning these principle questions are based on. The same rules of valid vs. flawed methods of reasoning using conditional statements applies to principle questions as does to any other type of question with a conditional.

You can never validly reason your way to concluding that a sufficient condition of a principle is true since that would be making a mistaken reversal, nor can you validly reason your way to concluding that a necessary condition(s) are not true since that would require mistaken negation.

Principle questions that provide you with a principle that is a conditional premise are just jazzed up conditional reasoning questions in terms of them requiring you to do fact sensitive analysis to figure out if you have available facts to apply the principle to, and if so, are they facts that allow you to apply the principle in a logically valid way to form a valid conclusion.


So is it correct to say that when a stimulus is in need of a principle to justify a conclusion (essentially that's what happens), that the principle in question we are looking for cannot be the sufficient condition?

That is what I am inferring from your post and it is what I have always thought.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby Jeffort » Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:13 pm

secretad wrote:
Jeffort wrote:In your example (B) would be correct. (A) would not because it would require you engage in flawed reasoning (mistaken reversal). The facts from the premise establish the truth of the sufficient condition of the principle in (B), therefore allowing you to conclude that the necessary condition is true. Simple as that.

The same thing applies as to the above situation you described as well as the other similar principle examples you posted in other threads.

I think you are over complicating the basic conditional reasoning these principle questions are based on. The same rules of valid vs. flawed methods of reasoning using conditional statements applies to principle questions as does to any other type of question with a conditional.

You can never validly reason your way to concluding that a sufficient condition of a principle is true since that would be making a mistaken reversal, nor can you validly reason your way to concluding that a necessary condition(s) are not true since that would require mistaken negation.

Principle questions that provide you with a principle that is a conditional premise are just jazzed up conditional reasoning questions in terms of them requiring you to do fact sensitive analysis to figure out if you have available facts to apply the principle to, and if so, are they facts that allow you to apply the principle in a logically valid way to form a valid conclusion.


So is it correct to say that when a stimulus is in need of a principle to justify a conclusion (essentially that's what happens), that the principle in question we are looking for cannot be the sufficient condition?

That is what I am inferring from your post and it is what I have always thought.


Correct. The conclusion you are asked to justify cannot be the sufficient condition of the principle unless you are being asked to justify concluding the negated form of the sufficient condition, which can be done by having facts that establish the lack of the necessary condition thereby allowing you to apply the contrapositive of the principle.

It's a matter of making sure you are clear about which elements are established by facts provided in premises vs. which part is a conclusion about the true/falseness of an element.

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Re: Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby youknowryan » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:17 pm

secretad wrote:I know that you guys remember the infamous principle question about "a statement is wholly truthful only if it is true and made without deception."

The other part of the moralist's statements was that:


Deceive or Refrained from Clarifying ---> Lie

So our two principles was that one and...

WT ---> T and ~D

The key to acing this question was knowing that you could not conclude what was wholly truthful. You could also not conclude what was not a lie.

I understand that situation but I am having trouble with a similar concept.

Here is a theoretical problem:

"The police officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon. That police officer was rightfully punished."

What principle would help to justify the officer's actions?

Let us say that you eliminate all but two answers and these are the ones you are left with during the test.

A) An officer should be punished only if the officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon.

B) An officer should be punished if the officer shot a person that clearly was without a weapon.


A) Should be punished ---> Officer shot person without weapon

B) Officer shot person without weapon ---> Should be punished

I feel that B is correct but I do not know what to make of choice A.

My question is can we have a sufficient condition of should be punished in this case? Could a principle be established by starting off with the prescriptive language in the sufficient spot?


What PT did the moralist question come from?

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Re: Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby youknowryan » Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:31 am

anyone?

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby EarlCat » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:27 pm

youknowryan wrote:What PT did the moralist question come from?

PT 55, S 1, Q 22

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Re: Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby youknowryan » Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:14 pm

EarlCat wrote:
youknowryan wrote:What PT did the moralist question come from?

PT 55, S 1, Q 22

thanks

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Re: Calling Suspicious Android/EarlCat or others (Principles)

Postby youknowryan » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:06 pm

EarlCat wrote:
youknowryan wrote:What PT did the moralist question come from?

PT 55, S 1, Q 22


that is a weaken question... am I missing something?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bcapace, BobBoblaw, connordalto, dj9i27, jiangzichen, Nik9639, PantoroB, somebodyelse, testtaker99, theboringest, VMars, wedidit1991 and 51 guests