Conditional Reasoning Question Forum

[lsatkid]

Stimulus: Eating healthy foods is essential to living a good life, for without a healthy diet you will not receive all the necessary vitamins. Without these vitamins your body will deteriorate.

Can someone, please, tell me why the correct diagram is Good Life → Eating Healthy Foods and not Eating healthy foods→ Good life. Essentially translates into a necessary modifier, correct?

There are other conditional parts, but I am only concerned with the first sentence.

Thank You,
Lsatkid

[GoldenGloves]

Healthy foods are necessary for living a good life. Thus, "healthy foods" is the necessary condition; it goes after the arrow.

The opposite would suggest that a good life is essential to eating healthy foods (Healthy Foods-->Good Life), where having a good life is the necessary condition.

[lsatkid]

I am confused. I thought since essential is in the middle, then the necessary would follow. If the term "if" was in the middle, then whatever follows from "if" would be the sufficient, so everything to the right. So, are you telling me that if a necessary "word" is in the middle of a sentence, then the necessary elements are to the left of the word?

[pcwcecac]

X is essential to Y == X is necessary to obtain Y

I am confused. I thought since essential is in the middle, then the necessary would follow. If the term "if" was in the middle, then whatever follows from "if" would be the sufficient, so everything to the right. So, are you telling me that if a necessary "word" is in the middle of a sentence, then the necessary elements are to the left of the word?

I don't totally follow. "if" and "necessary" function very differently in a sentence.

"X if Y" introduces the sufficient condition Y.

"X only if Y" introduces the necessary condition Y

[buck]

Word order is not a good guide. Look at the following sentences:

A healthy diet is essential to a good life.
A good life is impossible without a healthy diet.

They both say the same thing. You have to understand what it is saying.

Basically:

If not HD---> not GL

Take the contra

GL---->HD

[lsatkid]

I think I understand now. For example, the above posts has essential in the middle of the sentence, as opposed to the traditional if and then statement, i.e, If I am hungry, then I will eat. I guess my question is this, if I have a sentence that says" I would like to go to the mall essentially just to look around (I know this sentence doesn't make sense), does that translate into look around > mall.

[buck]

I think I understand now. For example, the above posts has essential in the middle of the sentence, as opposed to the traditional if and then statement, i.e, If I am hungry, then I will eat. I guess my question is this, if I have a sentence that says" I would like to go to the mall essentially just to look around (I know this sentence doesn't make sense), does that translate into look around > mall.

Thats not a conditional statement. Don't rely on word order. Try to understand what the sentence is saying.

[pcwcecac]

I think I understand now. For example, the above posts has essential in the middle of the sentence, as opposed to the traditional if and then statement, i.e, If I am hungry, then I will eat. I guess my question is this, if I have a sentence that says" I would like to go to the mall essentially just to look around (I know this sentence doesn't make sense), does that translate into look around > mall.

No. In this example, essentially is almost functionless. "I would like to go to the mall to look around" is nearly identical in meaning. It is not synonymous to "if I want to look around, then I should go to the mall"

[lsatkid]

1)I would like to go home if my mother allows me to = Mother > home. If introduces the sufficient condition of mother.

So if the sufficient condition is in the middle, like the above example, then everything to the right of "if" would be the sufficient condition. From the essential example, it seems as if whenever a necessary word is in the middle, then the necessary is to the left of that word. I hope I am on the right page. Sorry for the repetitive questions.

[lovejopd]

1)I would like to go home if my mother allows me to = Mother > home. If introduces the sufficient condition of mother.

So if the sufficient condition is in the middle, like the above example, then everything to the right of "if" would be the sufficient condition. From the essential example, it seems as if whenever a necessary word is in the middle, then the necessary is to the left of that word. I hope I am on the right page. Sorry for the repetitive questions.

Yes, the position of if does not matter. the phrase that follows 'if' is sufficient(if my mother allows me to).

Also, essentially is not the same as essential in terms of sufficient/necessary condition.

The bottom line is that you need to think about what(sufficient) guarantee that something(necessary) will happen.

<Necessary Indicator>
-Essential, Necessary, is/are Required, only, only if, then(after if)
ex) A is necessary(essential, required) to B
B(Sufficient) --> A(Necessary)
ex) Only(if) a person who has money can go to a law school
Law School(Sufficient) ---> A person has money(Necessary)

<Sufficient Indicator>
-In order to, If
ex) In order to have a high LSAT score, you should study your ass off
LSAT Score --> Study Hard

<Important Indicator>
-Unless, Without, Except = If NOT
ex) Without a vitamin, you cannot live a healthy life
No Vitamin(Sufficient) --> No healthy life(Necessary)

You need to study 'a conditional logic section' in LSAT Book first to get familiar with this concept.
Hope this helps

[collegebum1989]

While we're discussing conditional reasoning, are the statements and diagrams below correct?

No A are B (A --> ~B)
some A are B, some B are not C (A some B some ~C; A some ~C)

[pcwcecac]

While we're discussing conditional reasoning, are the statements and diagrams below correct?

No A are B (A --> ~B)
some A are B, some B are not C (A some B some ~C; A some ~C)

EDIT: The first statement is correct

The second statement is not. 'some' is not transitive.

some boys are people. (TRUE)

some people are not males (TRUE)

--------------------------------------
some boys are not males (FALSE)

[collegebum1989]

gotcha, but some is transitive with conditionals right?

A some B --> ~C (A some ~C)

[yoni45]

gotcha, but some is transitive with conditionals right?

A some B --> ~C (A some ~C)

A simple guide to play by, is you can transfer a "partial" statement (some, most, whatever), only if there is one partial statement in the chain, and it happens to be the first one.

So, Some A's are B's, and Some B's are C's, does not mean that Some A's are C's.
All A's are B's, and Some B's are C's, does not mean that Some (or any) A's are C's.
Some A's are B's, and All B's are C's, does mean that Some A's are C's.