Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Flaw in the Reasoning: Error of Conditional Reasoning  (Read 546 times)

Craving Oyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Flaw in the Reasoning: Error of Conditional Reasoning
« on: November 30, 2008, 11:06:48 AM »
So I'm reading the LR Bible and this potential answer choice for mistakes in reversal makes no sense to me:

"Mistakes being sufficient to justify punishment for being required to justify it." (page 376)

Does that make any sense to anyone else?
December LSAT: 162
LSAC GPA: 3.05 (3.65)

Kels

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Flaw in the Reasoning: Error of Conditional Reasoning
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2008, 01:45:48 PM »
I don't have the book on me but it would guess the stimulus goes something like this.....if someone does X, then they deserve punishment. They concluded from this that because someone is punished, they must have done X.

The answer choice says...Mistakes being sufficient (i.e. doing X) to justify punishment for being required to justify punishment. 

This would be correct because there could be many things that could warrant punishment besides doing X. The wording is funny though and I could understand how you would misinterpret it.

Pop Up Video

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7275
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Reasoning: Error of Conditional Reasoning
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2008, 02:03:43 PM »
Required is another word for "necessary." The answer choice is another way of saying "switches S and N conditions"

Craving Oyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Reasoning: Error of Conditional Reasoning
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2008, 02:33:11 PM »
I don't have the book on me but it would guess the stimulus goes something like this.....if someone does X, then they deserve punishment. They concluded from this that because someone is punished, they must have done X.

The answer choice says...Mistakes being sufficient (i.e. doing X) to justify punishment for being required to justify punishment. 

This would be correct because there could be many things that could warrant punishment besides doing X. The wording is funny though and I could understand how you would misinterpret it.

Thanks, that explains it!
December LSAT: 162
LSAC GPA: 3.05 (3.65)

CaptainSparrow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Reasoning: Error of Conditional Reasoning
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2008, 03:45:34 PM »
So I'm reading the LR Bible and this potential answer choice for mistakes in reversal makes no sense to me:

"Mistakes being sufficient to justify punishment for being required to justify it." (page 376)

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

Just as it says, the sufficient and necessary is switched. "If you are a lawyer, then you are successful. John is successful, so he must be a lawyer."
Preptests: 167, 163, 164, 160

Dec 08: