Conditional statements: "without" and "required" Forum

[jesuis]

I know that "without" indicates the Necessary condition, and that the Sufficient condition is negated.

I also know that "requires" indicates the Necessary condition.

BUT, I am having a very hard time with rewording a given conditional statement with the different indicator words ("without" and "requires")

Apparently, the following two sentences effectively mean the same thing:

"I can in my house WITHOUT being at home" = "Being at home is NOT REQUIRED for being in my house"

[edinbourgh]

That example you used can be a bit confusing at first. It also seems a bit off in a few ways.

Try it with an easier example.

The dog will bark without J being at home.

J being at home is required for the dog to not bark.

Dog not bark -> J is at home.

[jesuis]

edinbourgh, thank you for your response! it is very helpful, and your example is definitely more clear than the one I used (I actually got mine from a problem I was having trouble with in SuperPrep (C-II-22))
Your example "The dog will bark without J being at home" = "J being at him is required for the dog not to bark" makes sense...

BUT, is it also the same to say "J being at home is NOT REQUIRED for the dog to bark" ???

this is really where I get confused, the "not required" as the effect of the "not" is unclear in my mind--what does it modify!?

I have been stuck on this ("not required" effect) all freakin day! so any input would be greatly appreciated

[cherryalamode]

That example you used can be a bit confusing at first. It also seems a bit off in a few ways.

Try it with an easier example.

The dog will bark without J being at home.

J being at home is required for the dog to not bark.

Dog not bark -> J is at home.

With the way you wrote it, it seems to be that

J is at home--> dog will not bark.

But I'm really rusty with this so if I'm wrong, please elaborate on your answer, thanks!

[jjlaw]

That example you used can be a bit confusing at first. It also seems a bit off in a few ways.

Try it with an easier example.

The dog will bark without J being at home.

J being at home is required for the dog to not bark.

Dog not bark -> J is at home.

With the way you wrote it, it seems to be that

J is at home--> dog will not bark.

But I'm really rusty with this so if I'm wrong, please elaborate on your answer, thanks!

Another way to look at it is:

If the dog does not bark, then J is home.

This means that "J is at home" is the necessary condition (required) and the dog barking is the sufficient condition.

[jesuis]

That example you used can be a bit confusing at first. It also seems a bit off in a few ways.

Try it with an easier example.

The dog will bark without J being at home.

J being at home is required for the dog to not bark.

Dog not bark -> J is at home.

With the way you wrote it, it seems to be that

J is at home--> dog will not bark.

But I'm really rusty with this so if I'm wrong, please elaborate on your answer, thanks!

As stated by jjlaw, the condition being required (in this case "J being at home") is the Necessary condition...
so with the example given by edinbourgh (J being at home is required for the dog to not bark), ask yourself "what's being required?" or "what is required?" and the answer will be your Necessary condition, so that the remaining condition (which is being related to the condition that's required) is the Sufficient condition...
so that the diagram for this example is in fact: Dog not bark --> J at home.

The position of the word "required" (or a variation--requires/require/etc.) does not indicate which condition is which, the important thing is to decipher 'WHAT is being REQUIRED?'
To clarify: (statement 1 = 2)
1. J being at home is required for the dog not to bark.
2. The dog not barking requires J to be home.

In 1, the Necessary condition comes before the indicator word "requires"; while in 2, the Necessary condition comes after the indicator word "required"
In both cases, when you ask yourself "what is being required?" the answer is "J being at home" so that tells us that's the Necessary condition!

Hope that helps

[jesuis]

"NOT REQUIRED" = not a conditional statement!

so disregard my question about it (see, Conditional Statements: "NOT required", forum subject for more info)

[edinbourgh]

No problem jesuis. I actually became a little confused with your quesion of "not required" at first. I was under the impression that it's not conditional because something being NOT required would not really tell us anything about a conditional relationship. I'm glad the issue has been settled, though.

The content of the example I gave could make it seem like that, cherryalamode. However, as jjlaw pointed out clearly in the post above the necessary condition here is J being at home.

And great analysis, jesuis. Best of luck to everyone who will be taking the LSAT soon!