I came upon this thought this morning while thinking about both types of logic as they appear on the LSAT. Perhaps my thoughts/insights can be of use to others in being able to better grasp both.
Isn't conditional logic, as it appears on the LSAT, in fact a subset of formal logic? Conditional Logic (in terms of if A, then B [A>B], [B > A]) can also be expressed in an exactly equivalent way as "All A are B" and "All NotB are NotA". Conditional Logic does not use the "most" and "some" that appear in other sections of formal logic (as it appears on the LSAT), but does seem to in fact be merely subsets of when formal logic chains use entirely "all" or "none" relationships.
What do others think?
From a nonscientific sampling of browsing these forums, it seems more people have trouble with formal logic than conditional logic. By showing that these two are linked intrinsically, perhaps this can help people build their understanding of both better.
The Relationship between Conditional Logic and Formal Logic

 Posts: 139
 Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 7:40 pm

 Posts: 139
 Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 7:40 pm
 mhaas
 Posts: 206
 Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:53 am
Re: The Relationship between Conditional Logic and Formal Logic
KingofSplitters55 wrote:Well?
Please repeat the question.
 homestyle28
 Posts: 2322
 Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:48 pm
Re: The Relationship between Conditional Logic and Formal Logic
What you're calling "formal logic" is usually called syllogistic logic (b/c All As are red, Bob is an A, therefore Bob is red) is a syllogism. Formal logic as a distinct category isn't really a thing to actual logicians. And no you can't collapse the conditional into a syllogism.
Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Slippin' Jimmy and 9 guests