The Relationship between Conditional Logic and Formal Logic
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:57 pm
I came upon this thought this morning while thinking about both types of logic as they appear on the LSAT. Perhaps my thoughts/insights can be of use to others in being able to better grasp both.
Isn't conditional logic, as it appears on the LSAT, in fact a sub-set of formal logic? Conditional Logic (in terms of if A, then B [A->B], [-B -> -A]) can also be expressed in an exactly equivalent way as "All A are B" and "All Not-B are Not-A". Conditional Logic does not use the "most" and "some" that appear in other sections of formal logic (as it appears on the LSAT), but does seem to in fact be merely subsets of when formal logic chains use entirely "all" or "none" relationships.
What do others think?
From a non-scientific sampling of browsing these forums, it seems more people have trouble with formal logic than conditional logic. By showing that these two are linked intrinsically, perhaps this can help people build their understanding of both better.
Isn't conditional logic, as it appears on the LSAT, in fact a sub-set of formal logic? Conditional Logic (in terms of if A, then B [A->B], [-B -> -A]) can also be expressed in an exactly equivalent way as "All A are B" and "All Not-B are Not-A". Conditional Logic does not use the "most" and "some" that appear in other sections of formal logic (as it appears on the LSAT), but does seem to in fact be merely subsets of when formal logic chains use entirely "all" or "none" relationships.
What do others think?
From a non-scientific sampling of browsing these forums, it seems more people have trouble with formal logic than conditional logic. By showing that these two are linked intrinsically, perhaps this can help people build their understanding of both better.