klaudiaxo wrote:
Hi Mike,
thank you for the explanation a few months ago! I am still studying and I came upon another problem I cannot figure out at all.
It is PT 24 S3 Q24
Do you happen to have this one on hand? I am very confused how to diagram this problem. I know that "when and only when" is a bi conditional, but I was wondering how I know to recognize those as well as how to digram the unless statement and put them together for this problem.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Hey --
A few thoughts --
1) when and only when is a play on if and only if --
There are just a couple of ways the test writers generally create a biconditional situation --
Either by combining two conditions into one:
"J if K" (J <-K)" + "J only if K" (J -> K) = "J if and only if K" (J <->K)
Or by giving us two separate rules that together combine to form the double arrow:
"If J then K." (J -> K, - K -> - J)
"If not J, then not K" ( - J -> - K, K -> J)
Added together they give us J <-> K (and -J <-> - K).
As long as u keep that in mind, you should be able to spot all bicons when they appear.
2) I would not diagram this problem, and in general would not recommend diagramming for answer conforms to principle/give example of principle q's (and most other q's for that matter) -- I think it’s an inefficient use of your time, and can lead to unnecessary drops in accuracy.
Here's the analogy that comes to mind --
Remember when you were little -- you probably played games in activity books where you were presented with two nearly identical pictures, and your task was to recognize what is different about the pictures? Or maybe you were given one main picture, and three or four copies -- one identical, the rest with some changes made, and you had to figure out which one was the right match? ---
Even if you didn't play such games, I hope the image presented is clear --
In our hypothetical walk down memory lane, the best way to go about finding a match / recognize discrepancies was to cross-check the pictures one small part at a time --
An inefficient way of playing such games would be to
a) draw out your own version of what the original picture was like and then
b) try and match the answer options with your drawing
I think unnecessary diagramming can play a similar role as creating an unnecessary drawing.
3) Instead, I think it's a better strategy to put more of your energy into carefully trying to match up parts of each answer choice with the stimulus, with the goal of finding mismatches.
Four of the answers will either have components that won’t match up (missing some key part required by the stimulus or more components than the stimulus has, etc) or reasoning that doesn’t match up (the answer uses reasoning that is opposite from that in the stimulus, or just different altogether ((about causation when original was about conditional logic, etc.)) --
Using this method to evaluate the answers for 24-3-24 --
A) Notice “open to most people” -- this directly contradicts “open to everyone” in the stimulus and so we know (A) is a mismatch and we can eliminate it.
B) goes from saying S has inequalities to concluding that S must be unjust -- it fails to account for the entire “unless…” (that is, fails to account for a way in which a society could have income inequality and still be just) and so we know (B) is a mismatch and we can eliminate it.
C) is missing the entire part about basic liberties, a necessary component, per the stimulus, of a just society. So we know (C) is a mismatch and we can eliminate it.
D) clearly violates a required condition of a just society -- equal right to basic liberties, and so matches the given information well. Let’s leave it.
E) is missing the part about the inequalities being to everyone’s advantage. And so since we are missing all the necessary criteria for determining that a country is just, (E) is a mismatch and we can eliminate it.
I think if one is too focused on trying to map out all the links, see all possible inferences, etc. (B) and (E) may seem like more attractive answers, and I think evaluating them with a mindset of just trying to find and focus in on a specific reason why the answer
mismatches the stimulus hopefully puts you in a better position to correctly evaluate those most important differences between those answers and the original stimulus.
I hope that makes sense --
If you were to bring in diagramming on this q, I would recommend doing so at the stage of evaluating the answers -- that is, for example, imagine you can’t quite eliminate (B) with confidence -- well maybe at that point you diagram a bit to evaluate how it relates to the stimulus.
I’m sure there are contrary opinions on this, but those are my thoughts and HTH -- MK