A conditional conclusion Forum

[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.

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

I do, I use this too. A lot of times its hit or miss with those guys though. I don't think there is really nothing like the live interaction with someone when they are helpful like most of you guys have been.

[ltowns1]

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.

Yeah I was more so asking than asserting that there were some.

[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.

Yeah I was more so asking than asserting that there were some.

Great thread.

[ltowns1]

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.

Yeah I was more so asking than asserting that there were some.

Great thread.

For weakening I certainy can point to some, and if you can do it for weakening, I would certainly think you can do it for strengthening well.

[Rigo]

For weakening I certainy can point to some, and if you can do it for weakening, I would certainly think you can do it for strengthening well.

If you can certainLy point to instances where this happens, then do it. Otherwise you're just wasting people's time who make a good faith effort to understand your confusing train of thought.
Your time will surely be better spent learning fundamentals and working with actual published LSAT questions.

If you post a question, I'll try to help you because I'm almost certain you're misunderstanding something basic (probably the task the question is asking of you).

[ltowns1]

For weakening I certainy can point to some, and if you can do it for weakening, I would certainly think you can do it for strengthening well.

If you can certainy [sic] point to instances where this happens, then do it. Otherwise you're just wasting people's time who make a good faith effort to understand your confusing train of thought.
Your time will surely be better spent learning fundamentals and working with actual published LSAT questions.

You don't have to comment anymore if you don't want. I'll wait for someone who will be patient enough to help me figure it out... I ask questions that are important and relevant to me. You don't have to help me at all, I don want to waste your time. I too try to make ask questions in a good faith effort. This is not BS for me, I don't mind being corrected or told otherwise, I just ask that you do it in a way that is constructive and proper. As future lawyers I would hope all of us would attempt to do that. If you want, I welcome your helpful comments

Pf 35 #17 section 4, PT 22 section 4 #19

[Rigo]

Pf 35 #17 section 4, PT 22 section 4 #19

PT35S4Q17
Oh okay. I see what you mean now by attacking the necessary condition. This is an except question so there are a lot of assumptions/flaws in this argument. It is basically a lot of formal logic, so you can "attack" the necessary conditions, but you don't necessarily need to attack the conclusion (in this case, that only eliminates answer choice A)
The necessary condition of the conclusion says you can't tax at a higher rate than 30%, whereas answer choice (A) basically says that the real number should be 45% (and therefore it weakens the conclusion because you can in fact tax higher than 30%* and therefore directly contradicts the conclusion).
If you notice, the other AC's you eliminate do not have to do with the necessary condition in the conclusions so as a general rule of thumb, no you do not have to attack the necessary condition in the conclusion but it can be a tool in your toolbox so--as always--be very critical of the conclusion in relation to the support.
(E) is correct because it is irrelevant and therefore does nothing to the argument. Doing nothing is not the same as weakening.

PT22S4Q19
Bingo. You're right. The correct answer attacks the "MUST act responsibly." Answer choice (B) finds a loophole and is therefore correct. There's also a subtle term shift from what society THINKS is responsible and the act of ACTUALLY ACTING responsible in the conclusion. If you picked up on that, you should have solved this very quickly.

I'm here to help, man. It's just hard to follow your threads sometimes. They tend to veer towards the bizarre, but maybe I'm just the kind of person who needs to be shown what you're actually talking about rather than told.
As a rule of thumb though, you don't need to always attack the necessary condition in the conclusion. In the PT35 question, only one of the 4 acceptable weaken AC's attacked the necessary assumption in the conclusion. The other three did not, so be flexible and don't always rely on attacking the necessary condition in the conclusion because while it works in the PT22 question, there will be other questions where you'll be left twiddling your thumbs if you strictly adhere to that rule.

HTH.

*eta: fixed typo.

[ltowns1]

Pf 35 #17 section 4, PT 22 section 4 #19

PT35S4Q17
Oh okay. I see what you mean now by attacking the necessary condition. This is an except question so there are a lot of assumptions/flaws in this argument. It is basically a lot of formal logic, so you can "attack" the necessary conditions, but you don't necessarily need to attack the conclusion (in this case, that only eliminates answer choice A)
The necessary condition of the conclusion says you can't tax at a higher rate than 30%, whereas answer choice (A) basically says that the real number should be 45% (and therefore it weakens the conclusion because you can in fact tax higher than 45% and therefore directly contradicts the conclusion).
If you notice, the other AC's you eliminate do not have to do with the necessary condition in the conclusions so as a general rule of thumb, no you do not have to attack the necessary condition in the conclusion but it can be a tool in your toolbox so--as always--be very critical of the conclusion in relation to the support.
(E) is correct because it is irrelevant and therefore does nothing to the argument. Doing nothing is not the same as weakening.

PT22S4Q19
Bingo. You're right. The correct answer attacks the "MUST act responsibly." Answer choice (B) finds a loophole and is therefore correct. There's also a subtle term shift from what society THINKS is responsible and the act of ACTUALLY ACTING responsible in the conclusion. If you picked up on that, you should have solved this very quickly.

I'm here to help, man. It's just hard to follow your threads sometimes. They tend to veer towards the bizarre, but maybe I'm just the kind of person who needs to be shown what you're actually talking about rather than told.
As a rule of thumb though, you don't need to always attack the necessary condition in the conclusion. In the PT35 question, only one of the 4 acceptable weaken AC's attacked the necessary assumption in the conclusion. The other three did not, so be flexible and don't always rely on attacking the necessary condition in the conclusion because while it works in the PT22 question, there will be other questions where you'll be left twiddling your thumbs if you strictly adhere to that rule.

HTH.

I appreciate it that, I really do. I dont know the correct lingo all the time like you all do (even though I prob. Should considering how long I studied.) but I just ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt when I ask something you don't understand. (As you have for the most part) I'm not here to waste anyone's time, I'm here to learn. If my questions lean to the bizarre it's because I don't know how articulate them in a way that makes sense to everyone. The LSAT can contain complicated lingo as I'm sure you know, and we all interpret in different ways. However, all of my questions, as you just you saw, have some bearing on information regarding the lsat. I really appreciate your honesty, and your help.