Diagram This... Forum
- Ocean64
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm
Diagram This...
I thought I'd start a thread for people to post any interesting LR diagrams or to ask diagramming questions for others to answer.
I'll begin by something I came across today:
If it is not the case that the park contains both laurels and oaks, then it contains firs and spruces.
Diagram:
(not)L or (not)O ===> F & S
(or neither)
I'll begin by something I came across today:
If it is not the case that the park contains both laurels and oaks, then it contains firs and spruces.
Diagram:
(not)L or (not)O ===> F & S
(or neither)
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Diagram This...
(l & o) or (f & s)
Seems simplest to me
Seems simplest to me
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 4:51 pm
Re: Diagram This...
For the condition to not be met, both L and O have to be present. So if either L is not present OR O is not present, then the result is that F and S have to be present.
Likewise, if either F or S are not present, then it must be true that the first condition isn't met. Meaning that both L and O must be present.
So your first version is right.
Edited after confusion.
Likewise, if either F or S are not present, then it must be true that the first condition isn't met. Meaning that both L and O must be present.
So your first version is right.
Edited after confusion.
Last edited by BigRed1988 on Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 4:51 pm
Re: Diagram This...
suspicious android wrote:(l & o) or (f & s)
Seems simplest to me
Can't say this. If it is F & S then there's no reason to say it can't be L & O.
If NOT L or NOT O ----> Both F AND S
If NOT S or NOT F ----> Both L AND O
There are no rules about if L & O ARE present, just about if they are both NOT present.
Last edited by BigRed1988 on Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Ocean64
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm
Re: Diagram This...
I thought so too in the beginning, but i found out that it was a mistake lol...this is from game 2 in PT B in superprep btwsuspicious android wrote:(l & o) or (f & s)
Seems simplest to me
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Diagram This...
That's what my post said. You have to have at least one pair, maybe both. "Or" is inclusive, bro.BigRed1988 wrote:
Can't say this. If it is F & S then there's no reason to say it can't be L & O.
If NOT L or NOT O ----> Both F AND S
If NOT S or NOT F ----> Both L AND O
There are no rules about if L & O ARE present, just about if they are both NOT present.
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Diagram This...
Shoulda gone with your first instinct! It's definitely correct, but so is your version in the first post. They're logically identical, just a matter of preference; I like "or" statements better than "if not".
I thought so too in the beginning, but i found out that it was a mistake lol...this is from game 2 in PT B in superprep btw
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 4:51 pm
Re: Diagram This...
suspicious android wrote:That's what my post said. You have to have at least one pair, maybe both. "Or" is inclusive, bro.BigRed1988 wrote:
Can't say this. If it is F & S then there's no reason to say it can't be L & O.
If NOT L or NOT O ----> Both F AND S
If NOT S or NOT F ----> Both L AND O
There are no rules about if L & O ARE present, just about if they are both NOT present.
"Or" is not necessarily inclusive, someone diagraming it that way might assume that it has to be one or the other, and can't be both. That makes it even more confusing. Bro.
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Diagram This...
Only if people don't understand the implications of "or" will they make this mistake, as you did in your erroneous correction. It's worth it to learn. People also very frequently misunderstand statements when diagrammed as you recommended. They're tricky. Anyway, the two diagrams are logically identical, there is no single correct answer, just a number of incorrect ones.BigRed1988 wrote:"Or" is not necessarily inclusive, someone diagraming it that way might assume that it has to be one or the other, and can't be both. That makes it even more confusing. Bro.
- soj
- Posts: 7888
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm
Re: Diagram This...
when it comes to the lsat, suspicious android is never wrong
also

also
Last edited by soj on Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- UnamSanctam
- Posts: 7342
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:17 am
Re: Diagram This...
TITCRsuspicious android wrote:Only if people don't understand the implications of "or" will they make this mistake, as you did in your erroneous correction. It's worth it to learn. People also very frequently misunderstand statements when diagrammed as you recommended. They're tricky. Anyway, the two diagrams are logically identical, there is no single correct answer, just a number of incorrect ones.BigRed1988 wrote:"Or" is not necessarily inclusive, someone diagraming it that way might assume that it has to be one or the other, and can't be both. That makes it even more confusing. Bro.
The symbol for "or" (in my case "v") has always meant inclusive. You use different symbols for OR (inclusive) and XOR (exclusive).
You can diagram any logic problem by simply using AND or XOR.
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 4:51 pm
Re: Diagram This...
suspicious android wrote:Only if people don't understand the implications of "or" will they make this mistake, as you did in your erroneous correction. It's worth it to learn. People also very frequently misunderstand statements when diagrammed as you recommended. They're tricky. Anyway, the two diagrams are logically identical, there is no single correct answer, just a number of incorrect ones.BigRed1988 wrote:"Or" is not necessarily inclusive, someone diagraming it that way might assume that it has to be one or the other, and can't be both. That makes it even more confusing. Bro.
Fine, if OP can differentiate between "or" meaning one or the other and "or" meaning "at least one of" by writing it the same way, then cool. But you have to make absolutely sure you're keeping it in that context, because if someone else just looked at the diagram they would assume "or" has to mean either one or the other. The point of the thread is to discuss how to make confusing statements into diagrams that are less confusing. If you're going to use "or" I would make a point of including "At least 1" at the beginning so when you look back you are reminded that "or" is not mutually exclusive. If you can make that a mental note instead, more power to you, but I prefer to err on the side of less ambiguity. If OP knows meaning of XOR that works, I did not until last post.
- soj
- Posts: 7888
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm
Re: Diagram This...
This isn't as elegant as android's solution, but you can split up the ORs in sufficient conditions.
~L -> F & S
~O -> F & S
~F -> L & O
~S -> L & O
This way you need only keep track of whether any of the sufficient conditions is satisfied.
~L -> F & S
~O -> F & S
~F -> L & O
~S -> L & O
This way you need only keep track of whether any of the sufficient conditions is satisfied.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- UnamSanctam
- Posts: 7342
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:17 am
Re: Diagram This...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_symbols
These are the symbols I've always used. Except XOR. Didn't really ever encounter it in my UG logic classes so I've always used a / for it in logic games.
HTH
These are the symbols I've always used. Except XOR. Didn't really ever encounter it in my UG logic classes so I've always used a / for it in logic games.
HTH
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 4:51 pm
Re: Diagram This...
soj wrote:when it comes to the lsat, suspicious android is never wrong
also
Other notable grads:


And applicants:
--ImageRemoved--
-
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:46 am
Re: Diagram This...
XOR isn't used much at all in basic logic, since the 'inclusive or' is assumed.UnamSanctam wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_symbols
These are the symbols I've always used. Except XOR. Didn't really ever encounter it in my UG logic classes so I've always used a / for it in logic games.
HTH
- Ocean64
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm
Re: Diagram This...
It's good that I'm learning other methods, but given a game like that one (idk if you guys have seen it) I'd rather keep it as simple as possible, that game kicked my butt.
Here's another one from it:
If yews are not in the park, then either laurels or oaks, but not both, are in the park.
Diagram: (not)Y===> L or O (not both)
Inference 1: (not)L & (not)O ===> Y
pretty straight forward, but there's a second inference that may not be so apparent at first,
Inference 2: L & O ===> Y
Contrapositive: (not)Y ===> (not)L or (not)O (but not both, i.e. one must remain in)
so this is a case where the "or" was not inclusive because of the original rule, and when looking at inference 2 you can't simply do the CP without remembering the original "but not both" restriction.
any thoughts or comments?
Here's another one from it:
If yews are not in the park, then either laurels or oaks, but not both, are in the park.
Diagram: (not)Y===> L or O (not both)
Inference 1: (not)L & (not)O ===> Y
pretty straight forward, but there's a second inference that may not be so apparent at first,
Inference 2: L & O ===> Y
Contrapositive: (not)Y ===> (not)L or (not)O (but not both, i.e. one must remain in)
so this is a case where the "or" was not inclusive because of the original rule, and when looking at inference 2 you can't simply do the CP without remembering the original "but not both" restriction.
any thoughts or comments?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- soj
- Posts: 7888
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm
Re: Diagram This...
Your two inferences together make up the contrapositive of the original diagram. So the contrapositive of inference 2 is simply a restatement of the original diagram.
The LSAT will sometimes use OR inclusively without giving you explicit hints like "or both." In fact, whenever there is no indication whether a particular OR is inclusive or exclusive, it's inclusive. The LSAT will NEVER use OR exclusively without giving you explicit hints like "but not both."
If the inclusive OR is not intuitive for you, TCR is to practice and make it intuitive.
The LSAT will sometimes use OR inclusively without giving you explicit hints like "or both." In fact, whenever there is no indication whether a particular OR is inclusive or exclusive, it's inclusive. The LSAT will NEVER use OR exclusively without giving you explicit hints like "but not both."
If the inclusive OR is not intuitive for you, TCR is to practice and make it intuitive.
- EarlCat
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Diagram This...
I like this way for in/out games (I might even break up the right-side "and" statements too). Its a little more to write initially, but using simple conditionals makes going through the questions more straightforward IMHO.soj wrote:This isn't as elegant as android's solution, but you can split up the ORs in sufficient conditions.
~L -> F & S
~O -> F & S
~F -> L & O
~S -> L & O
This way you need only keep track of whether any of the sufficient conditions is satisfied.
- EarlCat
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Diagram This...
TITCRsoj wrote:The LSAT will sometimes use OR inclusively without giving you explicit hints like "or both." In fact, whenever there is no indication whether a particular OR is inclusive or exclusive, it's inclusive. The LSAT will NEVER use OR exclusively without giving you explicit hints like "but not both."
If the inclusive OR is not intuitive for you, TCR is to practice and make it intuitive.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:22 am
Re: Diagram This...
Can you explain how you came to this?BigRed1988 wrote:For the condition to not be met, both L and O have to be present. So if either L is not present OR O is not present, then the result is that F and S have to be present.
Likewise, if either F or S are not present, then it must be true that the first condition isn't met. Meaning that both L and O must be present.
So your first version is right.
Edited after confusion.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:22 am
Re: Diagram This...
Depending on how many things can be in the park...Ocean64 wrote:If it is not the case that the park contains both laurels and oaks, then it contains firs and spruces.
Possibilities:
LFSXXX
OFSXXX
FSXXXX
LOFSXX
- Ocean64
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm
Re: Diagram This...
Diagram this...
Unless Marion takes the train instead of driving, she can get to work on time only by leaving at least 45 minutes early.
Unless Marion takes the train instead of driving, she can get to work on time only by leaving at least 45 minutes early.
- soj
- Posts: 7888
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm
Re: Diagram This...
That Q is a tricky one. I don't think diagramming will help you much there.Ocean64 wrote:Diagram this...
Unless Marion takes the train instead of driving, she can get to work on time only by leaving at least 45 minutes early.
If on time -> 45min early OR train
(inclusive OR, obviously)
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Diagram This...
How about:
The fact that citizens must own property in order to vote is enough to declare either that voting is not a free activity or that the only true citizens are property owners.
The fact that citizens must own property in order to vote is enough to declare either that voting is not a free activity or that the only true citizens are property owners.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login