Difficult Formal Logic Diagramming

[zainrizvi]

I've been reviewing a lot and I've come to realize my weakness: difficult formal logic diagramming.

For example, questions such as beauty and truth (PT 49), space communication (S4PT62) - I am finding them very difficult.

I usually don't diagram as I'm able to understand the choices without it, but for these questions, I feel like it is almost necessary. Does anyone know any other way to approach these qs?

If not, how can I really improve the diagramming the difficult qs? I'm sort of confused by the notation with the parentheses being introduced - and how the rules are applied to them. Basically, how do you diagram a conditional within a conditional?

Also, Q18S2PT54 (about taking a strong position on issues with evidence), how the heck are you supposed to know which terms are equivalent? I was really confused with evidence being impartial, not understanding everything fully, etc

Are there any tips/strategies for dealing with these types of qs?

I know I've asked a lot but I'd appreciate any help!

Thanks for all your responses in advance guys. They've been really helpful thus far!

[noah]

I'm glad to help - and I appreciate when you've answered other folks' questions. (And that's probably one of the best ways to prepare once you have the basics down.)

The questions you're referring to are some of the hardest on the test - so struggling with those is the right thing! If you're truly in the 180 ballpark, then getting each and every one right, within a reasonable amount of time, is required. But, if you're a mere mortal going for a 170, and you're under a week from test day, you can live with these being super tough, and a weakness. I have my own weaknesses, and only because I recognize that a question here or there is beating me can I get a 99th percentile score.

That said, we don't want to give up on these during our preparations. It sounds like you're solid on basic diagramming (if not, try the LSAT Arcade game "If/Then"), so we're talking about nuanced stuff really. There's lots of small topics within this issue, but the one I believe you're referring to is when a premise contains a relationship. For example, "If rain means we'll have dangerous driving conditions, then Tim shouldn't be driving right now."

That works out to (Rain --> Danger) --> NOT Tom driving

So, if we know Tim is driving, then what do we know? We know that the relationship Rain --> Danger is not true. It doesn't mean that Rain --> NOT danger, it just means that if there is Rain, we don't know if it's dangerous or not.

I hope that helps - but more importantly, I hope you don't freak out about these ridiculous questions. Working wrong-to-right, looking for detail creeps and out of scope answers will often get you there. And, if not, move on and get the other ones right. Best to get the hardest ones wrong quickly and save time for the ones that you just need a bit more time on.

[zainrizvi]

Hey Noah,

Thanks for the great advice! I think I was freaking out a bit, but I took a step back and realized that I've been able to solve these answers before using POE, so I'm pretty happy at this point. That being said, I was hoping you could help me with the beauty and truth question from PT49 (q16-there-is-a-difference-between-t1326.html) using a less formalized/diagram approach and something more like an example.

I can easily eliminate all the answer choices except (A) and (D). Relying on past experiences, I can tell that (D) is probably too strong of an answer for a necessary assumption question. That being said, I want to refine my intuition and really understand why (D) is wrong.

Suppose that the NOT only the best works are beautiful, meaning that there some works that are beautiful yet not the best. I'm having trouble understanding how this impacts the argument.

[noah]

Suppose that the NOT only the best works are beautiful, meaning that there some works that are beautiful yet not the best. I'm having trouble understanding how this impacts the argument.

That's exactly it. How does that impact the argument? Not at all!

I just resolved it and what jumped out at me was the leap from "beauty" to "best" - and that's what (A) provides. I was dubious of "realistic" to "truth" but then those get connected in the second sentence.

(B) is about non-realistic - seems problematic.
(C) connects realism and best.
(D) is wrong for the reason you noted.
(E) is pretty easily eliminated for scope reasons.

In the end, that question boils down to noticing the term shift - the formal way is a longer route to that.

I hope that helps.