Conditional Logic Qs Forum

[splittermcsplit88]

For all the high scorers, do you guys map conditional logic questions? Questions like "x cannot help z get healthier b/c x smokes. Whoever does not care about his/her health does not care about other people's health and if one does not care about another's health, then he/she cannot help that person get healthier." I find that I get these wrong a lot of the times b/c I tell myself I can do it in my head but then later get confused by the trap answer choices. Am I supposed to get to a point where I don't need to map?

[gatesome]

For all the high scorers, do you guys map conditional logic questions?

yes

Am I supposed to get to a point where I don't need to map?

no

[Op_Diom]

For all the high scorers, do you guys map conditional logic questions? Questions like "x cannot help z get healthier b/c x smokes. Whoever does not care about his/her health does not care about other people's health and if one does not care about another's health, then he/she cannot help that person get healthier." I find that I get these wrong a lot of the times b/c I tell myself I can do it in my head but then later get confused by the trap answer choices. Am I supposed to get to a point where I don't need to map?

I started out by mapping conditions like the one you used in your example using the following method:
(1) -p -> -q
(2) -q -> -r
(3) s -> -p
(4) X
____________
(5) X[-p] .......MPP 3,4
(6) X[-q] ....... MPP 1,5
(7) X[-r] ....... MPP 2,6
(8c) X[-p & -q & -r] .......& 6, 7, 8
(which means x doesn't care about his health, and doesn't care about other's health, and can't help other get healthier because X smokes).

After practicing with visualizing these types of conditional relations it is possible for one to get to the point of not needing to map out the argument with the aforementioned method. However, you need to master the common flaws listed in LR guides because these are the types used in wrong answer choices that attempt to throw you off. Thus, if you have a good handle on necessary and sufficient conditions and how they can and cannot be constructed, along with a lot of practice visualizing the relations within arguments such as this one, it isn't necessary to draw these diagrams and waste precious time.

But, that's just my opinion and it has worked for me. I hardly ever write one thing down on a LR section, and miss no more than -2. Yet, I do have quite a bit of experience with logic and arguments in general. Hope this helps.

[lebongenre]

For all the high scorers, do you guys map conditional logic questions? Questions like "x cannot help z get healthier b/c x smokes. Whoever does not care about his/her health does not care about other people's health and if one does not care about another's health, then he/she cannot help that person get healthier." I find that I get these wrong a lot of the times b/c I tell myself I can do it in my head but then later get confused by the trap answer choices. Am I supposed to get to a point where I don't need to map?

I agree with Op_Diom's comment about visualizing the way the necessary/sufficient conditions interact. This was key for me, and I think the only diagramming I did on test day was for parallel/parallel flaws. However, when the conditional logic gets complicated or for some reason or other isn't easy to visualize mentally, there's no harm at all in quickly sketching it out. You're more likely to reject the wrong answers than be tempted by them when you have something concrete to look back on.