Logicians spend a great deal of time discussing validity and truth, even going
so far as to create complex truth tables that analyze the validity of arguments. We
are not concerned with such methods because they do not apply to the LSAT.
So far, we have only identified the parts that are used to construct arguments.
We have not made an analysis of the reasonableness or soundness of an
argument. But, before moving on to argument analysis, you must be able to
distinguish between two commonly confused concepts: validity and truth.
When we evaluate LSAT arguments, we are primarily concerned with validity.
That is, what is the logical relationship of the pieces of the argument and how
well do the premises, if accepted, prove the conclusion? We are less concerned
with the absolute, real world truthfulness of either the premises or the
conclusion. Some students will at first try to analyze every single LSAT
statement on the basis of whether it is an absolutely true statement (does it
happen as stated in the real world). For the most part, that is wasted effort.
LSAT Logical Reasoning is primarily focused on whether the conclusion
follows logically from a set of given premises. In many cases, the LSAT
makers will let you work under a framework where the premises are simply
accepted as factually accurate, and then you must focus solely on the method
used to reach the conclusion. In a sense this could be called relative
truthfulness—you are only concerned about whether the conclusion is true
relative to the premises, not whether the conclusion is true in an absolute, real
world sense. This is obviously a critical point, and one we will analyze later as
we discuss different question types.
so far as to create complex truth tables that analyze the validity of arguments. We
are not concerned with such methods because they do not apply to the LSAT.
So far, we have only identified the parts that are used to construct arguments.
We have not made an analysis of the reasonableness or soundness of an
argument. But, before moving on to argument analysis, you must be able to
distinguish between two commonly confused concepts: validity and truth.
When we evaluate LSAT arguments, we are primarily concerned with validity.
That is, what is the logical relationship of the pieces of the argument and how
well do the premises, if accepted, prove the conclusion? We are less concerned
with the absolute, real world truthfulness of either the premises or the
conclusion. Some students will at first try to analyze every single LSAT
statement on the basis of whether it is an absolutely true statement (does it
happen as stated in the real world). For the most part, that is wasted effort.
LSAT Logical Reasoning is primarily focused on whether the conclusion
follows logically from a set of given premises. In many cases, the LSAT
makers will let you work under a framework where the premises are simply
accepted as factually accurate, and then you must focus solely on the method
used to reach the conclusion. In a sense this could be called relative
truthfulness—you are only concerned about whether the conclusion is true
relative to the premises, not whether the conclusion is true in an absolute, real
world sense. This is obviously a critical point, and one we will analyze later as
we discuss different question types.
No comments:
Post a Comment