## conditional diagramming

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
bleern031

Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:02 am

### conditional diagramming

Can someone diagram this?

Because Joe likes to eat pie, he is fat.

bleern031

Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:02 am

### Re: conditional diagramming

.

TrojanHopeful

Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

### Re: conditional diagramming

Premise: Likes to Eat Pie-------->Fat

Premise: Joe likes to eat pie

Conclusion: Joe is fat

Contrapositive:

Not Fat---------->Doesn't like to eat pie

jamesireland

Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:52 pm

### Re: conditional diagramming

There is a difference between conditionals and arguments. 'Because' is an argument indicator, not a conditional indicator, so there isn't really a conditional statement here to diagram.

Consider 'A -> B' and 'A BECAUSE B'. To see that these are different note that from the latter one can infer that 'A', whereas from the former one cannot.

TrojanHopeful

Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

### Re: conditional diagramming

jamesireland wrote:There is a difference between conditionals and arguments. 'Because' is an argument indicator, not a conditional indicator, so there isn't really a conditional statement here to diagram.

Consider 'A -> B' and 'A BECAUSE B'. To see that these are different note that from the latter one can infer that 'A', whereas from the former one cannot.
True. However, I believe that my argument breakdown above shows that there is a conditional statement involved (if, in fact, the argument is valid).

## Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!

jamesireland

Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:52 pm

### Re: conditional diagramming

TrojanHopeful wrote:
jamesireland wrote:There is a difference between conditionals and arguments. 'Because' is an argument indicator, not a conditional indicator, so there isn't really a conditional statement here to diagram.

Consider 'A -> B' and 'A BECAUSE B'. To see that these are different note that from the latter one can infer that 'A', whereas from the former one cannot.
True. However, I believe that my argument breakdown above shows that there is a conditional statement involved (if, in fact, the argument is valid).
Your proposed conditional tells us about the relationship between the two parts: Joe liking to eat pie and Joe being fat; but it doesn't tell us anything about the truth of the individual parts. Given the conditional, can we say whether or not Joe does like to eat pie? no. The original statement however indicates that it is in fact true that Joe likes to eat pie. Diagramming the statement as a conditional leaves out important information. Depending on the question this might be very important.

The original statement might imply a conditional like the one you propose, but just because it is an implication doesn't mean it is a proper representation.

maru

Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:44 pm

### Re: conditional diagramming

I think diagramming a causal argument can still be helpful, as long as you keep in mind that it's causal and not conditional. Sorry, unhelpful comment is unhelpful. :|

bp shinners

Posts: 3086
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

### Re: conditional diagramming

maru wrote:I think diagramming a causal argument can still be helpful, as long as you keep in mind that it's causal and not conditional. Sorry, unhelpful comment is unhelpful.
No, definitely helpful. You should have a method for diagramming causal arguments that differs from conditionals. Especially for strengthen/weaken questions, where you're looking for a specific answer type if the argument is causal.

Personally, I draw out the cause and effect with a swooping arrow connecting the two underneath. Similar to a conditional, but different enough so that I know more is going on.