Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

LMD
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:00 am

Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby LMD » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:14 pm

What makes X is Y. Is that X ---> Y or Y ---> X. (I believe it is the latter.)

Practice makes perfect. If you practice, you will be perfect, or if you are perfect, you have practiced?

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Not sure how to handle this and having a disagreement with another tutor.

Thanks for your help.

User avatar
AAJD2B
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby AAJD2B » Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:07 pm

Y---> X

Practice ----> Perfect

W & not P ----> Dull

User avatar
Sourrudedude
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:34 pm

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby Sourrudedude » Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:39 pm

AAJD2B wrote:Y---> X

Practice ----> Perfect

W & not P ----> Dull

yup

User avatar
SecondWind
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:06 pm

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby SecondWind » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:44 am

AAJD2B wrote:Y---> X

Practice ----> Perfect

W & not P ----> Dull



I third that motion.

ioannisk
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:38 am

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby ioannisk » Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:32 am

Y---> X

Practice ----> Perfect

W & not P ----> Dull


Could you explain?

It sounds like "X is necessary for y" in the phrase "X makes y"

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby manofjustice » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:52 pm

ioannisk wrote:
Y---> X

Practice ----> Perfect

W & not P ----> Dull


Could you explain?

It sounds like "X is necessary for y" in the phrase "X makes y"


Why would it sound like that?

"John makes pie." He's a chef. But all sorts of other people can make pie. Sometimes I make pie. chup will make pie after the breaking bad season finale. John is not necessary for the making of pie.

This is why I recommend that a thorough going over of an intro to logic course materials. You will train your brain to avoid these mistakes.

Basically, develop a familiarity and an intuition with necessary and sufficient conditions, both in the sentential and predicate forms. Consider this: true or false, all of a thing's necessary conditions constitute the thing's sufficient condition? Answer: sometimes true, sometimes false. When you start out, you tend to answer "true" because you don't see the distinction clearly between the necessary and the sufficient. Sometimes--quite often, actually--a thing will have multiple independently sufficient conditions (while always having the same necessary conditions--hence "necessary.") That's our case here. Pie has multiple independently sufficient conditions: John, me, chup, etc...

edit: Another neat example:

Sometimes a thing's necessary conditions go BEYOND a thing's sufficient condition. What is necessary for combustion? Heat (i.e. heat to flash point of fuel), fuel, ignition (i.e. heat to ignition point of fuel flash vapor), and oxygen. It seems those four things are also sufficient for combustion. But what else is necessary for combustion? Light. Combustion always produces light. Light, however, contributes nothing to the sufficient condition of combustion--you can start combustion in total darkness.

You can play around with your categories and make the conditions more or less numerous by making each more or less inclusive (for instance, heat and ignition could be collapsed into "adequate and well-applied heat"), but it's just an example.

If you are going to train yourself, train yourself doing silly problems like this. THEN take practice tests...I guarantee you...if you master the necessary and sufficient, there is nothing standing in your way of a perfect score on logical reasoning (and reading comp will improve a bit too.)

TL;DR--play around with combinations of necessary and sufficient conditions so that the set of the necessary does not overlap with the set of the sufficient. Notice the gaps. Then you're developing an intuition for the necessary and the sufficient and learning how to think through the problem space. Glad to answer any more questions.

edit edit: One more thing. As the combustion example demonstrates, never thoughtlessly equate conditions with cause. Conditional thinking is NOT causation analysis. A common mistake. Whereas trying to understand the "cause" of something is trying to "really understand" it, conditional thinking is a little more..."unambitious." It's just trying to suss out associations.

Again, ask away and I'll keep my answers brief.

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

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby bp shinners » Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:05 pm

LMD wrote:What makes X is Y. Is that X ---> Y or Y ---> X. (I believe it is the latter.)

Practice makes perfect. If you practice, you will be perfect, or if you are perfect, you have practiced?

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Not sure how to handle this and having a disagreement with another tutor.

Thanks for your help.


"Makes" is causal, not conditional.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby manofjustice » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:53 pm

bp shinners wrote:
LMD wrote:What makes X is Y. Is that X ---> Y or Y ---> X. (I believe it is the latter.)

Practice makes perfect. If you practice, you will be perfect, or if you are perfect, you have practiced?

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Not sure how to handle this and having a disagreement with another tutor.

Thanks for your help.


"Makes" is causal, not conditional.


It is causal but pretend it is not. And it is certainly conditional. You will get nowhere trying to analyze causation on the LSAT. That's because there is no formal logical system describing causation.

"x makes y." x --> y. That's it. I promise you there is no way that "x makes y" yields anything other than x is the sufficient condition for y.

User avatar
JWP1022
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby JWP1022 » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:54 pm

If you replace "makes" in any of those examples with "guarantees" it becomes a lot clearer. If it's anything -- and BPShinners is right that's it's more of a cause/effect term -- then it would be sufficient.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby manofjustice » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:58 pm

JWP1022 wrote:If you replace "makes" in any of those examples with "guarantees" it becomes a lot clearer. If it's anything -- and BPShinners is right that's it's more of a cause/effect term -- then it would be sufficient.


That's right. "If it's anything, it's sufficient" is a good way to attack it. Who knows what x is. It could be the "cause"--whatever a "cause" is...it's a complicated question. Torts will teach us that. But whatever it is, it comes with y, bottom line.

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

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby bp shinners » Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:49 pm

manofjustice wrote:You will get nowhere trying to analyze causation on the LSAT. That's because there is no formal logical system describing causation.


That statement is so incorrect that I don't even know where to begin...

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby manofjustice » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:13 pm

bp shinners wrote:
manofjustice wrote:You will get nowhere trying to analyze causation on the LSAT. That's because there is no formal logical system describing causation.


That statement is so incorrect that I don't even know where to begin...


You don't even understand the statement. You are confusing LSAT-world "causal reasoning" peddled by some LSAT books with what it really is--conditional reasoning by a made-up name.

There are three formal logical systems that yield definite true-or-false answers that the LSAT uses to formulate logical reasoning questions: predicate logic, sentential logic, and modal logic. There is no such thing as "causation logic." A logical system must meet several criteria, one of which is determinacy, also called completeness. (To satisfy the criterion of determinacy, a logical system must be able to say whether any theorem is true or false that possibly can be composed from its language under its rules of construction.) No logical system can yield determinate true-or-false answers on all maters within its scope, as to whether something is the cause of another. Whether one thing is the cause of another is a matter of debating factual conditions and how strong the informal definition of "cause" ought to be--such indeterminate analysis is a poor candidate to underpin the one correct answer in a logical reasoning question.

And I got a perfect score on logical reasoning. Conditional reasoning worked for all the questions.

HTH.

User avatar
TheMostDangerousLG
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:25 am

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby TheMostDangerousLG » Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:23 pm

You will never see this language on the LSAT.

</thread>

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

Re: Quick question about word "makes" in conditionals

Postby bp shinners » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:23 pm

manofjustice wrote:
bp shinners wrote:
manofjustice wrote:You will get nowhere trying to analyze causation on the LSAT. That's because there is no formal logical system describing causation.


That statement is so incorrect that I don't even know where to begin...


You don't even understand the statement. You are confusing LSAT-world "causal reasoning" peddled by some LSAT books with what it really is--conditional reasoning by a made-up name.


You picked the wrong statement to attack - sorry for the confusion. I meant that you were wrong to say that you will get nowhere trying to analyze causation on the LSAT. Identifying causal language and knowing some tricks for manipulating it will absolutely save your life on some questions, without having to understand complex formal logical systems.

Is it high level philosophy? No. Will it get you points easily? Yes.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dontsaywhatyoumean, Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests