Fair enough - those are just the basic building blocks. You do need to get a strong grip on them before you move forward on it as well as the verbal indicators. A whole mess of logical flaws are based on that. Once you really understand sufficient necessary, start looking into the other areas.Amerision wrote:180pedia wrote:Are you having trouble with understanding the basics of formal logic or when it gets more convoluted on the LSAT?Amerision wrote:I'm doing pretty well with my studying, but I'm having a little trouble with formal logic. Is the Logical Reasoning Bible a good way to fix this? Any way besides reading?
I will definitely take your advice about skimming the pages of a few books. I get sufficient -> necessary (to an extent -- sometimes I get tripped up on which is which) and definitely contrapositive, but the language of answer choices messes me up a lot. One that is especially difficult for me to is the "which of the following arguments has the same sort of structure" questions. I try to diagram the original and match up an answer to that, but oftentimes there are two that fit or my diagram is incorrect.
Those would be parallel reasoning and flawed parallel reasoning.
For the former, you always want to figure out whether it is a good or bad argument (you will need a strong grasp on logic for this), and you can typically eliminate some answers like that. I think you can for the latter too, but I forget how often they have good arguments as answer choices for flawed parallel reasoning.
Some of the items I mentioned above often come into play for these.
Get a really strong grasp on logical indicators and how the necessary and sufficient functions. Then add in AND OR statements, and learn how those change the way logical arguments can work. Then I would work on quantifiers (Some most all etc.).