Necessarily implies?

[chike_eze]

Having a hard time differentiating among the following:

X necessarily implies Y
X necessarily yields Y
X conclusively demonstrates Y

The last example above surely is X --> Y, but I'm not so clear about the first two.

Here are examples of how both have been used in a legal opinion:

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff would "necessarily imply" the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.

Here, success in Skinner's suit for DNA testing would not "necessarily imply" the invalidity of his conviction.

A Brady claim, when successful... "necessarily yields" evidence undermining a conviction.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure if there's any nuanced difference among the three in the legal world, but as far as LSAT is concerned, all three are identical.

They all just mean
X --> Y

The verb 'implies' is basically equivalent to the arrow.

Joyce's happiness implies she won the lottery =
Joyce Happy --> Won lottery

In real life, people tend to think of "implies" in the fuzzy sense of "What are you implying?" (meaning, "what are you trying to get me to think, even though you didn't really say it?")

But on LSAT, we want to think of "implies" as it relates to "implication".

If you have a conditional statement, the 2nd idea is an implication of the 1st one being true.

"Not necessarily imply" tells you there is NO arrow.

Joyce's happiness does not necessarily imply she won the lottery =
If Joyce is happy, maybe she won the lottery, maybe she didn't.

I've never seen "yields" used on LSAT, but "necessarily yields" seems equivalent to "guarantees".

Hope this helps.