A conditional conclusion Forum

[ltowns1]

In an argument with conditional reasoning are we always going to look to do somehing to the necessary condition? Or does this depend on the question type (strengthen, assumption, flaw,weaken..etc.)

[Hand]

is this some kind of experimental poetry?

[ltowns1]

is this experimental poetry?

Can you answer the question?

[Hand]

is this experimental poetry?

Can you answer the question?

I don't think anyone can

good luck

ETA: follow your dreams

[ltowns1]

is this experimental poetry?

Can you answer the question?

I don't think anyone can

good luck

ETA: follow your dreams

Then please just go away, no need to be a bully. I just want my question answered thanks. No more,no less.

[Hand]

But I really like your experimental poetry, especially if we fix it up a little

A conditional conclusion by ltowns1


In an argument with conditional reasoning
going to look to do somehing
to the necessary condition.

Strengthen, assumption!

Flaw, weaken.

if that is not beauty I don't know what is

[kaiser]

In an argument with conditional reasoning are we always going to look to do somehing to the necessary condition? Or does this depend on the question type (strengthen, assumption, flaw,weaken..etc.)

I don't understand the question. What do you mean "do something to"?

[Hand]

In an argument with conditional reasoning are we always going to look to do somehing to the necessary condition? Or does this depend on the question type (strengthen, assumption, flaw,weaken..etc.)

I don't understand the question. What do you mean "do something to"?

I think he means "rub gently"

[Hand]

This one is beautiful too:

Conditional Reasoning in Sufficient Questions by ltowns1

looking for condtionality
in suff. questions

looking for the something
in the conclusion

trigger the premises
sufficient statement

[Hand]

Condtionality answer choice in a necessary assumption by ltowns1

Every once N a while
answer choices
give conditionality
in assumption questions.

Is there ever a time
you should take
more than 2 seconds?

[Hand]

Lol LSAT by ltowns1

I tell them
there are four wrong answers
and one right answer for sure

(I took the LSAT in the early 80's!!!!!!)

SERIOUSLY SHUT THE BLANK UP

lol.

not now!!!!!


I FEEL SOOO MUCH BETTER NOW LOL

[Hand]

Method of argument questions by ltowns1

Treat it like an inference question

Like any other assumption family question

[Hand]

Lol LSAT (part II) by ltowns1

Back to the topic at hand
not ignorant statements made by
a select few

What makes it real bad is that
even if they did

Take the test

they would probably find a way to say.... lollll

Writing like this
for a purpose
btw.

[Rigo]

No offense, but your question really doesn't make any sense, so I guess the answer would be a simple no.
Maybe edit a fourth time to clarify?

[msp8]

ltowns1, have you read any books on LR? You've posted a lot of questions on LR. It may be useful to pick up a book to get a firmer grasp of the fundamentals.

[Hand]

Instead of reading books, I think ltowns should publish their own

I can do the editing

Preptest 26 sec-3 #21 by ltowns1

Finding he weakness n
this argument

Look for the necessary
premise in the argument

Just trying to
find

the weakness

[ltowns1]

In an argument with conditional reasoning are we always going to look to do somehing to the necessary condition? Or does this depend on the question type (strengthen, assumption, flaw,weaken..etc.)

I don't understand the question. What do you mean "do something to"?

When I say "do something" I mean attack the necessary condition in the way corresponding to the question type

[ltowns1]

No offense, but your question really doesn't make any sense, so I guess the answer would be a simple no.
Maybe edit a fourth time to clarify?

None taken...When I say "do something" I mean attack the necessary condition in the way corresponding to the question type. Is that more clear, or do you still not understand???

[Hand]

(no title)

When I say
"do something"

I mean:

attack

(corresponding to the question type)

[Rigo]

In an argument with conditional reasoning are we always going to look to do somehing to the necessary condition? Or does this depend on the question type (strengthen, assumption, flaw,weaken..etc.)

I don't understand the question. What do you mean "do something to"?

When I say "do something" I mean attack the necessary condition in the way corresponding to the question type

The only way to attack a necessary condition is to make it no longer necessary. But I think you just answered your own question: you would only attack it in a weaken question. Even then, you want to "attack" the argument (the premise to conclusion relationship), not just one part of the argument. Normally with conditionality, the question is looking for either a SA or NA, so you will need to provide an assumption.

[A. Nony Mouse]

(no title)

When I say
"do something"

I mean:

attack

(corresponding to the question type)

Dude, stop doing this. If you want to exercise your creativity in this way head over to the lounge. If you don't want to answer someone's question just ignore the thread.

[ltowns1]

In an argument with conditional reasoning are we always going to look to do somehing to the necessary condition? Or does this depend on the question type (strengthen, assumption, flaw,weaken..etc.)

I don't understand the question. What do you mean "do something to"?

When I say "do something" I mean attack the necessary condition in the way corresponding to the question type

The only way to attack a necessary condition is to make it no longer necessary. But I think you just answered your own question: you would only attack it in a weaken question. Even then, you want to "attack" the argument (the premise to conclusion relationship), not just one part of the argument. Normally with conditionality, the question is looking for either a SA or NA, so you will need to provide an assumption.

But there can be situations where you can have it in a strengthening question as well right...

So for example, John plays basketball. Therfore, if he plays basketball he is smart?

Which answer strengthens this argument? I should be looking for something that supports the necessary condition right???

[ltowns1]

ltowns1, have you read any books on LR? You've posted a lot of questions on LR. It may be useful to pick up a book to get a firmer grasp of the fundamentals.

Yeah I have, I just like to ask questions up here...books can't respond back if you have a question, and im not taking a prep course.

[Rigo]

But there can be situations where you can have it in a strengthening question as well right...
So for example, John plays basketball. Therfore, if he plays basketball he is smart?
Which answer strengthens this argument? I should be looking for something that supports the necessary condition right???

Can you provide me with an actual LSAT question that showcases what you are asking?
I don't recall conclusions being conditionals like this (as this one relates to the premise). My guess would be that this would probably be closest to a SA question with the answer choice that is along the lines of "if one plays basketball, then a person is smart" or "everyone who plays basketball is smart."
Normally, what you have as your conclusion wouldn't be the conclusion. It would be another premise. A proper conclusion would be "Jon is smart."
I'm racking my brain to think of a question that has this format though, so I'd appreciate a specific published question.

[Rigo]

ltowns1, have you read any books on LR? You've posted a lot of questions on LR. It may be useful to pick up a book to get a firmer grasp of the fundamentals.

Yeah I have, I just like to ask questions up here...books can't respond back if you have a question, and im not taking a prep course.

You should check out the Manhattan forums. They're pretty good for explanations.