Subscription pricing
Should I diagram a "might" statement as an existential quantifier? Like "If Jack is smart, he might eat healthy." But, it doesn't have to be the case that Jack ever eats healthy, so that's why I don't think it's correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong
0
5 comments
Let me back up a little bit. I hope I don't confuse you.
If A then always B
If A then generally B
If A then maybe B
The If/Then construction clues us into the the presence of conditionality. The words "always", "generally", and "maybe" clue us into the strength of the statement and affect what kind of arrow we use.
(1) is pretty straightforward and A->B will work just fine. (2) can be translated two different ways depending on the circumstances: A-most->B or A->B* (where * denotes "generally"). (3) is a really weak statement. We can't use a most-statement and a some-statement doesn't make sense either. That's why I translated it as A->B* (where * denotes "maybe").
The LSAT will definitely test these differences. "Generally" would translate to "most" since it's saying "this thing happens more often than it doesn't".
1stAM--->/GP is a fine translation but you could also use 1stAM-most->/P
What do you mean by "no group 4 indicator"? Do you mean if the sentence read "Manuscripts written by first-time authors generally do get published"?
Thanks for clarifying.
What about "Manuscripts written by first-time authors generally do not catch get published." Would you diagram the "generally" as part of the terms (1stAM--->/GP), or as an existential quantifier (1stAM some /GP)?
Will the LSAT test these differences? Or is "generally" equivalent to "always"?
If the there was no group 4 logical indicator, would you still say the same thing?
I agree with @jkatz1488955's explanation above.
"Might" is not the conditional indicator in that that sentence; it's part of one of the terms. This sentence is an "If/Then" construction where A = Jack is smart and B = jack might eat healthy. You've omitted "then" but it doesn't change the logic of the sentence.
Hi. I don't think "might" should be diagrammed. If the word was "will" instead of "might" then the second action always occurs when the sufficient condition is there. When there's "might" there is no guarantee that the resultant condition will (or will not) occur.