Formal Logic Inquiry

cantthinkofgoodname
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:41 pm

Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby cantthinkofgoodname » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:30 pm

Hi All,

So I'm reading the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible and I just had a really quick question regarding Formal Logic questions (as Powerscore refers to them).

Basically, I'm just wondering about the question stem that is usually attached to Formal Logic stimuli. I would think that they are usually Must be True questions (just based on the nature of Formal Logic) but I just wanted to ask.

Thanks

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

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby Jeffort » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:43 pm

cantthinkofgoodname wrote:Hi All,

So I'm reading the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible and I just had a really quick question regarding Formal Logic questions (as Powerscore refers to them).

Basically, I'm just wondering about the question stem that is usually attached to Formal Logic stimuli. I would think that they are usually Must be True questions (just based on the nature of Formal Logic) but I just wanted to ask.

Thanks


You will find that almost all formal logic based LR questions are Must be True, Justify the conclusion/sufficient assumption and parallel reasoning types.

cantthinkofgoodname
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby cantthinkofgoodname » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:53 pm

thx!!

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby bp shinners » Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:31 am

Also the soft must be true principle questions - "Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle stated above?"

TylerJonesMPLS
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:20 pm

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby TylerJonesMPLS » Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:40 am

Also Could Be True questions.

E.g. 28.1.11, 41.3.02, 41.3.10, 43.3.17, 44.4.18

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

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby Jeffort » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:12 am

TylerJonesMPLS wrote:Also Could Be True questions.

E.g. 28.1.11, 41.3.02, 41.3.10, 43.3.17, 44.4.18


Oh boy, it's you again saying wrong stuff about LR question types. You don't know much yet and this post like the other one about suff/necc I left you a scathing reply to in another thread also shows that you are far from being knowledgeable enough about the LSAT to be trying to offer advice or information to students preparing to take the test.

There is no such thing as could be true questions in the logical reasoning sections of the LSAT!
AAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh OMG, help us all!!! lulz
Think carefully about the question stem as a whole and about the concept of logical opposition to determine what question type the ones you referenced actually are. What type of logical relationship to the information in the stimulus does the question stem actually describe? (it's not could be true)


Anyway, dude, at least learn what the basic LR question types are before you chime in with advice you think is helpful.

And again, it's nice that you are trying to be helpful, but yet again your advice could be counterproductive to students since it's a bit incorrect and misleading, especially since you presented yourself as being an expert that was a logic professor for 25 years. I hold you to a higher standard when you post information meant to be helpful because of that and will correct anything you post that is incorrect so students don't get messed up, I'm not trying to be a d.ck.
Last edited by Jeffort on Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:09 am, edited 5 times in total.

vkr
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:29 pm

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby vkr » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:33 am

Also, Strengthen. Evidence: Preptest 18-S2-Q2

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

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby Jeffort » Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:03 am

vkr wrote:Also, Strengthen. Evidence: Preptest 18-S2-Q2


Yeah, technically a strengthen question stem but in operation functions like a sufficient assumption question based on formal logic quantifiers.

It's not typical to encounter formal logic based questions that involve sticking together multiple quantifier premises to prove/support a conditional quantifier based conclusion, this is a rare example. If the phrase 'most supports' were changed to 'establishes' or some form of if true makes the conclusion 'logically correct' it would technically be a sufficient assumption question and the correct answer choice would satisfy the criteria for a SA question type.

TylerJonesMPLS
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:20 pm

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby TylerJonesMPLS » Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:15 am

Oh boy, it's you again saying wrong stuff about LR question types....There is no such thing as could be true questions in the logical reasoning sections of the LSAT!
AAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh OMG, help us all!!! lulz

Why do you feel so threatened by me, Jefford?

41.3.10 If the statements above are true, then each of the following COULD BE TRUE EXCEPT:

There are lots of Could Be True questions on the LR sections of the LSAT.

You can't make yourself look good by insulting me, Jefford. I don't mind, but other people might think that your behavior is not appropriate on this Board.

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

Re: Formal Logic Inquiry

Postby Jeffort » Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:29 am

TylerJonesMPLS wrote:
Oh boy, it's you again saying wrong stuff about LR question types....There is no such thing as could be true questions in the logical reasoning sections of the LSAT!
AAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh OMG, help us all!!! lulz

Why do you feel so threatened by me, Jefford?

41.3.10 If the statements above are true, then each of the following COULD BE TRUE EXCEPT:

There are lots of Could Be True questions on the LR sections of the LSAT.

You can't make yourself look good by insulting me, Jefford. I don't mind, but other people might think that your behavior is not appropriate on this Board.


I'm not threatened by you. I am offended that you are posting bad information about the LSAT to students preparing to take the test and trying to pass it off as good advice. I'll agree with you when you say things that are true and helpful and correct incorrect information you post if you do so again so that you don't confuse students that are also trying to learn the test.

There is no such thing as an LR question where the correct answer choice is something that could be true based on the information in the stimulus. Almost everyone that has learned the preliminary basics of the LSAT logical reasoning section knows this. One of the very first things pretty much every decent prep book or course covers about the LR section before digging into actual question is an overview of the question types you encounter in the section. Could be true is not on the list of LR question types. This is not just LSAT 101 knowledge, it's much more elementary than that. I'm not trying to insult you, as shown by your posts it's just a fact that you are not very well acquainted with some of the simple rudimentary basics of the test yet. Nothing wrong with that if you are trying to learn more about the test, its normal, you can't learn it all overnight.

FYI, They are must be false questions, not could be true.
Could be true EXCEPT =/= could be true.
Could be true EXCEPT = must be false/cannot be true

The word EXCEPT at the end as it relates to the phrase 'could be true' operates to define the criteria for the question type by stating must be false indirectly with its logical opposite followed by except. Many of the stems for this question type state it directly as 'Which of the following must be false' instead of making you do the mental step of thinking about what is the logical opposite of could be true to know what type of answer choice to look for. The EXCEPT construction of the stems for this type often throw off students that are not well acquainted with all the question types and the many various different ways they can be phrased. This is a question type that often contains conditional premises sometimes with formal logic quantifiers.

Please learn the basics and I wont have to criticize you and point it out when you are passing along bad advice or incorrect information to students, it's nothing personal.

If you think that pointing out incorrect information and explaining why it is incorrect is not appropriate on this board then I'm not sure what use it would be for students trying to learn more about the test. Sorry you feel insulted, all I did is point out flawed and incorrect information you posted since it was wrong and could be detrimental or confusing to students. It's not my fault you haven't learned much about the LSAT yet and have some incorrect ideas about it, you just need to learn more about it before you can start trying to be an advice giver. Nobody likes bad advice and as you will learn if you participate more, LSAT students are all about being very critical about everything given that it is essential for LSAT success. Part of the process involves analyzing everything and being very critical about things, such as when people say things that are or seem to be wrong or flawed. It's part of learning about the test and how to do well on it! It's ok to be an LSAT learner here on the board since you are still learning the fundamentals of the test. It's ok not to know certain things or about everything yet, just don't claim things to be true that are not true or that you don't really know to be true or are confused or uncertain about!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cctv and 6 guests