"always" as necessary condition indicator

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
sanduo

Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:27 pm

"always" as necessary condition indicator

Hello,
I have some questions regarding "always". It is said that "always" leads to necessary condition in conditional logic.
From the PT: " ...since the city should always do what makes good economic sense." (PT 34 Sec2 Q2)
They diagram like this: GES--> Do it.

Also: " There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that emotion(visceral emotion)." (PT 32 Sec4 Q4)
Diagram: Visceral emotion--> healthy to express.

Can anyone explain to me why is this? If "always" indicates necessary condition, why they put GES and Visceral emotion as sufficient condition? Shouldn't they all be in the necessary condition?
Maybe because English is not my native tongue, I probably didn't get the right intuition?

Thank you so much

Deardevil

Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:00 pm

Re: "always" as necessary condition indicator

You can reword it as this:

"If one wishes to express a visceral emotion, there is always a situation in which it is healthy to do so."

From the PT 34 example, "since" overrides "always," so it's a sufficient condition.
The "since" essentially negates "always," so the latter is ignored. Read it as "since blah blah blah, then blah blah blah."

kindofcanuck

Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:47 am

Re: "always" as necessary condition indicator

sanduo wrote:Hello,
I have some questions regarding "always". It is said that "always" leads to necessary condition in conditional logic.
From the PT: " ...since the city should always do what makes good economic sense." (PT 34 Sec2 Q2)
They diagram like this: GES--> Do it.

Also: " There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that emotion(visceral emotion)." (PT 32 Sec4 Q4)
Diagram: Visceral emotion--> healthy to express.

Can anyone explain to me why is this? If "always" indicates necessary condition, why they put GES and Visceral emotion as sufficient condition? Shouldn't they all be in the necessary condition?
Maybe because English is not my native tongue, I probably didn't get the right intuition?

Thank you so much

Whilst I don't know what tools you're using, I disagree with the interpretation.

In the first one, there could be a choice of two things which both make economic sense, and the city could only do one of them (e.g. they were both projects for the same tract of land). So it's impossible for merely being good economic sense to be enough to say do it. All you can say for that is that the city would not do a third thing which was bad economic sense, such as leaving that land unused and derelict.

Actually, it gets even worse, because of the word 'should' (not will). If the city *should* always do things that make good economic sense, it doesn't mean they're going to, it means they'll regret it if they don't. So merely being good economic sense isn't even a necessary term there, depending on what the question itself is.

sanduo

Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:27 pm

Re: "always" as necessary condition indicator

kindofcanuck wrote:
sanduo wrote:Hello,
I have some questions regarding "always". It is said that "always" leads to necessary condition in conditional logic.
From the PT: " ...since the city should always do what makes good economic sense." (PT 34 Sec2 Q2)
They diagram like this: GES--> Do it.

Also: " There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that emotion(visceral emotion)." (PT 32 Sec4 Q4)
Diagram: Visceral emotion--> healthy to express.

Can anyone explain to me why is this? If "always" indicates necessary condition, why they put GES and Visceral emotion as sufficient condition? Shouldn't they all be in the necessary condition?
Maybe because English is not my native tongue, I probably didn't get the right intuition?

Thank you so much

Whilst I don't know what tools you're using, I disagree with the interpretation.

In the first one, there could be a choice of two things which both make economic sense, and the city could only do one of them (e.g. they were both projects for the same tract of land). So it's impossible for merely being good economic sense to be enough to say do it. All you can say for that is that the city would not do a third thing which was bad economic sense, such as leaving that land unused and derelict.

Actually, it gets even worse, because of the word 'should' (not will). If the city *should* always do things that make good economic sense, it doesn't mean they're going to, it means they'll regret it if they don't. So merely being good economic sense isn't even a necessary term there, depending on what the question itself is.

Thank you for your reply! I will double think about whether I should apply conditional logic here.