Quick conditional question Forum
-
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm
Quick conditional question
Hey All,
This is gonna sound silly, but I cant seem to "grasp" the "unless" concept, even though I know how to diagram it.
For example,
R unless T.
The right way is not T-> R
but I cant seem to not get why is it not R -> not T
I tried to use the following example, but i cant seem to convince myself
I swim unless I eat.
Correct: I dont eat-> I swim
Incorrect: I swim -> I dont eat (can someone explain why this is wrong)?
This is gonna sound silly, but I cant seem to "grasp" the "unless" concept, even though I know how to diagram it.
For example,
R unless T.
The right way is not T-> R
but I cant seem to not get why is it not R -> not T
I tried to use the following example, but i cant seem to convince myself
I swim unless I eat.
Correct: I dont eat-> I swim
Incorrect: I swim -> I dont eat (can someone explain why this is wrong)?
- cc.celina
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
Actually it's neither.jimmierock wrote: R unless T.
The right way is not T-> R
but I cant seem to not get why is it not R -> not T
"R unless T" means that R happens, except in the case where T happens: in that case, R doesn't happen. So you get:
T -> not R
And the contrapositive:
R -> not T
So in the case, "I swim unless I eat"
The correct statement is actually "I eat -> I don't swim"
The contrapositive being "I swim -> I don't eat"
Meaning your interpretation is correct.
EDIT: Wait, I'm wrong. Am I wrong?
-
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm
- cc.celina
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
Wait, "A unless B" is the same as "B unless A" is the same as "A or B"
- cc.celina
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
The LSAT is on Monday why is this tripping me up!?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm
- cc.celina
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
Good, ok, I was getting worried there.VasaVasori wrote:Yea, I think.cc.celina wrote:Wait, "A unless B" is the same as "B unless A" is the same as "A or B"
A unless B = ~A -> B
B unless A = ~B -> A
So jimmie, to clarify, both "I don't eat -> I swim" and "I dont swim -> I eat" are correct.
All of this can be simplified with the statement "I eat or I swim"
-
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm
- cc.celina
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
Is this true? If R unless T, then doesn't R have to happen in any case T doesn't happen, and in the cases T does happen, R can't happen... meaning either R or T, but not both, is always true? I'm confusing myselfVasaVasori wrote: NOTE, however, that this doesn't mean that both R and T can't be true together.
-
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
lolol! you guys are confusing me, I am pretty sure I am right because I just got it Dave's videos.
R unless T = ~T -> R
http://www.velocitylsat.com/video/pages ... atements-7
1:42
but i just cant convince myself in a semantically meaningful way that it is.
R unless T = ~T -> R
http://www.velocitylsat.com/video/pages ... atements-7
1:42
but i just cant convince myself in a semantically meaningful way that it is.
-
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
here is the trick:
When you see unless, it introduces the necessary. Now reverse the other part and that is your sufficient.
Ex:
You will get A unless you get B
NOT A > B
Or
NOT B > A
Think about it, you will get A unless you get B, so if you get B then you aren't getting A
Ex 2:
Unless you do not get fired, you will not be able to pay the bill
Take unless for necessary: ( NOT be able pay bill)
Reverse the other for Sufficient: (Get fired)
Get Fired > NOT able to pay bill
Able to pay bill > NOT fired
When you see unless, it introduces the necessary. Now reverse the other part and that is your sufficient.
Ex:
You will get A unless you get B
NOT A > B
Or
NOT B > A
Think about it, you will get A unless you get B, so if you get B then you aren't getting A
Ex 2:
Unless you do not get fired, you will not be able to pay the bill
Take unless for necessary: ( NOT be able pay bill)
Reverse the other for Sufficient: (Get fired)
Get Fired > NOT able to pay bill
Able to pay bill > NOT fired
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
Yeah, guys, please stop. Not to be mean, but unless you're really clear on an concept, you shouldn't be offering this kind of advice.
OP gave the contrapositive of the "normal" way to diagram an unless statement, which is fine.
R unless T
~R --> T
~T --> R
all mean the same thing.
As for semantics, it doesn't seem to make sense because in colloquial language, when someone says "I'm going to the store unless it's raining" they mean:
~store --> rain
AND
store --> ~rain
However, the actual meaning of the sentence doesn't necessarily imply that. Imagine a situation like this:
She will die tomorrow unless she gets the antidote.
Can she die tomorrow if she gets the antidote? Sure, what if she gets hit by a bus? The antidote is necessary for her not dying, but the antidote is not sufficient for anything, no one can know what will happen if she gets it.
OP gave the contrapositive of the "normal" way to diagram an unless statement, which is fine.
R unless T
~R --> T
~T --> R
all mean the same thing.
As for semantics, it doesn't seem to make sense because in colloquial language, when someone says "I'm going to the store unless it's raining" they mean:
~store --> rain
AND
store --> ~rain
However, the actual meaning of the sentence doesn't necessarily imply that. Imagine a situation like this:
She will die tomorrow unless she gets the antidote.
Can she die tomorrow if she gets the antidote? Sure, what if she gets hit by a bus? The antidote is necessary for her not dying, but the antidote is not sufficient for anything, no one can know what will happen if she gets it.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- cc.celina
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
This is so counterintuitive...According to LSAC, you CAN have both.
I thought I was crystal but I've successfully managed to confuse myselfNot to be mean, but unless you're really clear on an concept, you shouldn't be offering this kind of advice.

-
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
OP I can assure you my above post is correct. Didn't read anyone else's.
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
From the original post:
As to the why it is counterintuitive (I totally agree it is), see the example about the antidote and let me know if it makes sense.
This is correct.jimmierock wrote: R unless T.
The right way is not T-> R
This is also correct. VasaVasori and CC are getting confused here. Brev also gave an accurate post.I swim unless I eat.
Correct: I dont eat-> I swim
As to the why it is counterintuitive (I totally agree it is), see the example about the antidote and let me know if it makes sense.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm
- cc.celina
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
It does, thank you. How I ever managed 180s on PTs without properly understanding this escapes me =/ Sorry for confusing you, guys.suspicious android wrote: As to the why it is counterintuitive (I totally agree it is), see the example about the antidote and let me know if it makes sense.

-
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm
-
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
Yes, thank you, that definitely clean this up a bit. Is just so damn un-intuitive is hard to get it, but I have come up with a method to just diagramming it right.suspicious android wrote:From the original post:
This is correct.jimmierock wrote: R unless T.
The right way is not T-> R
This is also correct. VasaVasori and CC are getting confused here. Brev also gave an accurate post.I swim unless I eat.
Correct: I dont eat-> I swim
As to the why it is counterintuitive (I totally agree it is), see the example about the antidote and let me know if it makes sense.
X unless Y.
Keep x positive (in original format), and negate y.
~Y -> X.
Another example
Not X unless Y
~Y -> ~ X.
Does this system sound it works?
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
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
No way that humble brag goes unmentioned.
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
I'm sorry, you were accurate addressing CC's ideas, but I got confused between what two posters were saying. However, I think you misinterpreted the OP:VasaVasori wrote:
My posts in this thread are accurate. Every single one. Just sayin'.
Getting defensive up in here.
Just a misread of the OP's diagram since he didn't used the ~ marks. OP accurately diagrammed the original "R unless T" as "not T --> R", that is to say "~T --> R".The OP diagrammed "R unless T" as ~R -> ~T or R -> ~T (I can't tell because of the placement of his word "not"). This isn't correct: neither is the contrapositive of any other correct form of the answer.
- suspicious android
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
The way you diagram these makes my head hurt. You can always just change "unless" to "if not" to get the diagrams you do, but I (and I think most people) memorize the formula as "unless introduces the necessary, negate the other part of the statement, that's the sufficient", so ours come out different (but equal).X unless Y.
Keep x positive (in original format), and negate y.
~Y -> X.
Another example
Not X unless Y
~Y -> ~ X.
Does this system sound it works?
- Helicio
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:22 pm
Re: Quick conditional question
Maybe making it more concrete will help.
I will not buy an ice cream cone (not A) unless my dad gives me money (B).
(Not A unless B)
If I buy an ice cream cone (A), then my dad gives me money (B).
A--->B
So not A unless B is A--->B.
Another example:
A unless not B means If A does NOT occur, B does NOT occur.
HTH
I will not buy an ice cream cone (not A) unless my dad gives me money (B).
(Not A unless B)
If I buy an ice cream cone (A), then my dad gives me money (B).
A--->B
So not A unless B is A--->B.
Another example:
A unless not B means If A does NOT occur, B does NOT occur.
HTH
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login