Nicole on February 21, 2020
(Sorry if this has posted twice, LSATMAX kept crashing)
I understand that we negate and reverse. However, the lecture states, "Lastly, if you are not in medical school, we can say you are not a doctor" (12:40-12:45 timestamp)
This reversed is: if you are a doctor, then we can conclude you went to med school.
When taking formal logic the (if, then) is very important in regards to antecedents and consequents.... Is this the same way the lesson is structured? It does not seem correct to state you are not currently IN medical school, therefore you are not a medical doctor. Maybe I was thrown off by the language used when you reversed the statement, making it currently in Med school, vs an inference that could have been made.
Also, Validity is important however, what about soundness and cogency when approaching the LSAT, are they important?
Is it better to not think of the formal/ symbolic logic I learned in my undergrad philosophy courses, and approach the LSAT's logical reasoning/ sufficient & necessary using LSATMAX's tips?
Shunhe on February 21, 2020
Nicole on February 23, 2020