Can word "because" be used to indicate conditional statement Forum

[josemnz83]

I have trouble diagramming conditional statements involving the word "beause." Are there any strategies for quickly and efficiently labeling a statement using such word.

Thanks!

[josemnz83]

One can know the complete state of the universe, because one can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant.

This was an example in a prep book I'm using. This was the only example I was not able to diagram.

Here is how the instructor diagrammed the problem:

C ----> K
-K-----> -C

I can usually use indicators such as "only," "in order to," etc to diagram. The word because throws me off.

Thanks!

[Mr.Binks]

Can you give an example. I only ask because I hear "because" and think causal relationship.

Agreed. The word "because" generally indicates causation. I'm not sure it can indicate a conditional statement, because a conditional statement implies that the necessary condition always occurs when the sufficient condition is present. However, it doesn't seem that a causal condition must always cause a certain result.

For example: "He fell because he slipped." Slipping clearly caused the person to fall, but it doesn't necessarily imply that he will always fall if he slips.
Now, consider: "If he slips, he will fall." This states that the person will always fall if he slips, leaving no room for error.

That's just my take on it. I could be wrong, however.

[Verity]

The word "because" generally indicates causation.

Why? beCAUSE.


OP, consider the following:

One can know the complete state of the universe, because one can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant.

This also says: One can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant. Therefore, one can know the complete state of the universe. For some reason, being able to order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant causes one to be able to know the complete state of the universe.

This is a simple "A, therefore B" scenario. A causes B.

[josemnz83]

Thanks! I got it!

[Nestico87]

The word "because" generally indicates causation.

Why? beCAUSE.


OP, consider the following:

One can know the complete state of the universe, because one can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant.

This also says: One can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant. Therefore, one can know the complete state of the universe. For some reason, being able to order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant causes one to be able to know the complete state of the universe.

This is a simple "A, therefore B" scenario. A causes B.

Sorry, but this is not logically correct. Everything up until the last line was accurate, but this is NOT a simple "A, therefore B" scenario.

Instead, this is a typical logical enthymeme (a syllogism with an assumed premise.)

Here is the structure of the argument:

(Assumed Premise: If one can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant then one can know the complete state of the universe.)
Premise: One can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant.
Conclusion: Therefore, one can know the complete state of the universe.

In other words it is a straight forward modus ponens argument with an assumed premise (an enthymeme)

If A, then B
A
Therefore B

To sum it all up, this is NOT a causal statement, but is instead a conditional argument with an assumed premise.

So your instructor diagramed it correctly, but he was diagraming the assumed premise.

[hereyago]

@OP

That example you gave is not a conditional statement. "Because" is just indicating a premise.

Your prep book and your instructor are high quality brah.

[justonemoregame]

doesn't seem like a real LSAT question -- if it's not, I wouldn't bother

[Verity]

The word "because" generally indicates causation.

Why? beCAUSE.


OP, consider the following:

One can know the complete state of the universe, because one can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant.

This also says: One can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant. Therefore, one can know the complete state of the universe. For some reason, being able to order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant causes one to be able to know the complete state of the universe.

This is a simple "A, therefore B" scenario. A causes B.

Sorry, but this is not logically correct. Everything up until the last line was accurate, but this is NOT a simple "A, therefore B" scenario.

Instead, this is a typical logical enthymeme (a syllogism with an assumed premise.)

Here is the structure of the argument:

(Assumed Premise: If one can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant then one can know the complete state of the universe.)
Premise: One can order a chocolate shake at any fast food restaurant.
Conclusion: Therefore, one can know the complete state of the universe.

In other words it is a straight forward modus ponens argument with an assumed premise (an enthymeme)

If A, then B
A
Therefore B

To sum it all up, this is NOT a causal statement, but is instead a conditional argument with an assumed premise.

So your instructor diagramed it correctly, but he was diagraming the assumed premise.

It is a simple "A, therefore B" scenario. You just added a line. "A, therefore B," without more, basically implies "If A, then B." Don't confuse OP.

[TylerJonesMPLS]

Actually, we often use conditional statements to describe causal relationships. But, of course, a causal relationship is not the same thing as an implication. Causality is something that we usually think of as pertaining to physical laws. But the laws of logic are entirely different.

Even so, it is generally easy to put causal relationships as conditionals. For instance:

The rain caused the sidewalks to get wet.

If it rained, then the sidewalks got wet.
If the sidewalks didn’t get wet, then it did not rain.

[03152016]

.

[Noblesse_Oblige]

doesn't seem like a real LSAT question -- if it's not, I wouldn't bother

Agreed, I don't think I've ever encountered a because statement on the Lsat (and if I did it was usually the flaw)

So your prep course may not have a good grasp on the linguistics of conditional statements (at least where the LSAT is concerned.

This is why you are always encouraged to use real LSAT questions to study and not prep course questions