In order for A, B must occur. Forum

[brickman]

This logically translates to if a, then b.

Why?

The language sounds like a is the necessary condition.

B must occur in order for A.

Halp, plox.

[isaiah6v8]

This logically translates to if a, then b.

Why?

The language sounds like a is the necessary condition.

B must occur in order for A.

Halp, plox.

B is necessary for A, but not sufficient. So if A, then B. You cannot have A without B.

You can, however, have B without A.

[dakatz]

When you say "in order for A, B must occur", this means that A cannot occur without B (thus B is the necessary condition). Try out an example and it should make more sense.

In order for me to become a professional baseball player, I must be able to hit home runs

It is pretty clear that hitting home runs is the necessary condition. After all, without that key skill, it would be impossible for me to become a professional baseball player. Hope this clears up your confusion.

[kasparov]

just read your title out loud. If a exists, b must also exist. maybe it will help you to realize there is no time order; b can happen before or after or during a. not sure how else to say it.

[sluguy14]

I agree that examples are a good way of internalizing formal logic. My LSAT teacher likes to use the "pregnant woman" example:

"In order to be pregnant, you must be a woman."

[dakatz]

just read your title out loud. If a exists, b must also exist. maybe it will help you to realize there is no time order; b can happen before or after or during a. not sure how else to say it.

Yeah, this is a good point. Don't confuse conditional reasoning with cause-and-effect. With cause and effect, one thing directly leads to the other. But with conditional reasoning, the sufficient simply guarantees that some other necessary condition also occurs, regardless of when. To illustrate:

If I get an A, it is necessary that I studied

If I eat at McDonalds, I will be full

In the first example, it is the studying that actually occurs first. In the 2nd example, it is the eating at McDonalds that would obviously come first. So definitely don't think of it as cause-and-effect.

[brickman]

just read your title out loud. If a exists, b must also exist. maybe it will help you to realize there is no time order; b can happen before or after or during a. not sure how else to say it.

Yeah, this is a good point. Don't confuse conditional reasoning with cause-and-effect. With cause and effect, one thing directly leads to the other. But with conditional reasoning, the sufficient simply guarantees that some other necessary condition also occurs, regardless of when. To illustrate:

If I get an A, it is necessary that I studied

If I eat at McDonalds, I will be full

In the first example, it is the studying that actually occurs first. In the 2nd example, it is the eating at McDonalds that would obviously come first. So definitely don't think of it as cause-and-effect.

I'm still trying to work this through, I know you are making a good point here, I just can't see it.

I understand that A is being encompassed by B, in that B consumes the same real-estate as b. So b would have to happen if a happens, I understand that. I think you are right in identifying that I am getting tripped up by the temporal nature of the language now that I am reflecting on it more.I still think I am having a hard time separating the cause-and-effect from the necessary sufficiency argument. I keep trying to change the wording to something like "If I get A, then B happens".

[dakatz]

just read your title out loud. If a exists, b must also exist. maybe it will help you to realize there is no time order; b can happen before or after or during a. not sure how else to say it.

Yeah, this is a good point. Don't confuse conditional reasoning with cause-and-effect. With cause and effect, one thing directly leads to the other. But with conditional reasoning, the sufficient simply guarantees that some other necessary condition also occurs, regardless of when. To illustrate:

If I get an A, it is necessary that I studied

If I eat at McDonalds, I will be full

In the first example, it is the studying that actually occurs first. In the 2nd example, it is the eating at McDonalds that would obviously come first. So definitely don't think of it as cause-and-effect.

I'm still trying to work this through, I know you are making a good point here, I just can't see it.

I understand that A is being encompassed by B, in that B consumes the same real-estate as b. So b would have to happen if a happens, I understand that. I think you are right in identifying that I am getting tripped up by the temporal nature of the language now that I am reflecting on it more.I still think I am having a hard time separating the cause-and-effect from the necessary sufficiency argument. I keep trying to change the wording to something like "If I get A, then B happens".

And that is precisely why you are confusing yourself. In conditional reasoning, the first factor does not CAUSE the second factor. To assume that it does would be to confuse correlation with causation. Lets do an example:

If I have lung cancer, then that means I smoked cigarettes

So this means that, if I point to someone with lung cancer, you can conclude with 100% certainty that he smoked cigarettes. Does having lung cancer CAUSE you to smoke cigarettes? No, that is just silly. A does not need to cause B. But you can certainly see how A and B are correlated.

That isn't to say that conditional reasoning is never cause and effect. Take the McDonalds example I used earlier. If I eat at McDonalds, then I will most certainly be full after. In this case, A directly lead to B. But this isn't the case with all, or even most, conditional reasoning that you will see on the test.

The pregnant woman example that someone mentioned above is also helpful in demonstrating this point.

If someone is pregnant, then that person is a woman

You can clearly see that A does not cause B. Getting pregnant does not cause someone to become a woman. A (being pregnant) is merely sufficient to conclude fact B (that the pregnant person must be a woman).

So don't think of it as, "if I have A, then B happens". Think of it as, "if I have A, then I can conclude with 100% certainty that B will also occur, regardless of whether B happens before or after".

[brickman]

this is very helpful, I think I've been thinking in a causal way for far too long. Rather, I think I understand this better now. A sufficient condition has a necessary element to it, but that necessary element is not enough to bring about the sufficient condition.

Definitely the syntax has been ruining my understanding of what should be a very basic element of this game. Thank you all for helping to clear this up.

[dakatz]

this is very helpful, I think I've been thinking in a causal way for far too long. Rather, I think I understand this better now. A sufficient condition has a necessary element to it, but that necessary element is not enough to bring about the sufficient condition.

Definitely the syntax has been ruining my understanding of what should be a very basic element of this game. Thank you all for helping to clear this up.

No prob. Suff/nec can certainly be confusing at first, but just keep writing out examples, and keep trying different phrasing. Once you get a feel for the various ways of stating conditional reasoning, it all falls into place much more easily. And don't hesitate to post any phrases or examples that confuse you here on the forum.

[brickman]

Sometimes the problem is reading the syntactical order (a, then b) as a temporal order (a occurs, then b occurs). This doesn't have to be the case; I found it easier to understand the rules if I totally inverted that order.

For example, if A then B:

I live 8 miles from a store. If I am at the store (A) then I drove (B). If A is true, B is and must be true. But driving (B) doesn't mean I always end up at the store (A).

Hate to be a bother, but could you provide more examples, I don't know how this has troubled me for as long as it has. I think I just found that temporal worked some times and just assumed that is how it worked...bad choice.

[LSAT Blog]

Here are two examples where the sufficient comes after the necessary:

Example #1
In order to get grillz, I've gotta have some bling.

If G -> B

(If I get grillz, I must have had bling.)

(Gotta is equivalent to must, which indicates necessary condition. Therefore, the "in order to" must indicate the sufficient.)

--ImageRemoved--


Example #2
I need to cause fear in order to be a gangster.

If G -> CF

(If I'm a gangster, then I must have caused fear at some point prior to earning the designation of gangster.)

Again, "need" indicates necessary condition, so "in order to", the other part, must be the sufficient indicator.




-Steve

[jmhendri]

I heard somewhere you make $1500 per question for actually writing this shit. I would love to have seen some of this stuff on the actual LSAT.

[brickman]

Here are two examples where the sufficient comes after the necessary:

Example #1
In order to get grillz, I've gotta have some bling.

If G -> B

(If I get grillz, I must have had bling.)

(Gotta is equivalent to must, which indicates necessary condition. Therefore, the "in order to" must indicate the sufficient.)

--ImageRemoved--


Example #2
I need to cause fear in order to be a gangster.

If G -> CF

(If I'm a gangster, then I must have caused fear at some point prior to earning the designation of gangster.)

Again, "need" indicates necessary condition, so "in order to", the other part, must be the sufficient indicator.




-Steve

lulz. As always, thanks for the help.

[WWAD]

Whatever "must" happen is the necessary. The list of words identifying sufficient and necessary is something you must learn to score high.