Lewis Carroll was a fantastic author whose ability to take readers on bizarre journeys is unrivalled. But he was also a keen logician. Check it out:
"[Y]ou should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.
'I do,' Alice hastily replied; 'at least — at least I mean what I say — that's the same thing, you know.'
'Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. 'You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'
'You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, 'that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!'
'You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, 'that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'"
Ten points for telling me what Alice did there?
Anyone?
Exactly! She wrongly equates “X then Y” with “Y then X”, or in other words she commits the heinous LSAT crime of making a mistaken reversal.
When I look at this text I like to make my own translations, to LSATify it a bit!
Alice says “at least, I mean what I say”, whereas I translate it to “whatever I say, I mean”.
We can then take it a step further, by applying the if/then structure:
“If I say it, then I mean it”
The Mad Hatter rightly informs Alice that this is not equivalent to “saying what you mean”.
Or in my translations;
“Whatever I mean, I say” ---> “If I mean it, then I say it”
As you can see in the excerpt, the Hatter, March Hare and Dormouse are all quick to point out the flaws in this logical fallacy, by switching X and Y just as Alice has.
A real life example
Okay then, let’s crawl out of the rabbit hole. We can do the same for many everyday sayings. Think of the classic china shop rule..
If you break it, you buy it.
A fair enough rule, if we LSAT it up a bit, we have “if I break it, then I will buy it”.
Meaning that breaking it is a sufficient condition for buying it, but not the ONLY (or necessary) condition for buying it.
Now, if we look at the mistaken reversal of this statement, it’d read something a bit like “If I buy it, then I broke it”. This suggests that the ONLY condition for buying something is by breaking it - a logical fallacy!
So, how is your understanding of the mistaken reversal? Are you like Alice in the previous example or more like our logical trio?
It’s great to be able to spot mistaken reversals in real life and in novels - and it’s certainly nice to get away from more formal studying every now and then - but do you know how to spot it on the LSAT?
Being sure that you know what the various aspects of conditional reasoning look like on the LSAT is essential to cracking the LSAT code and rocking an awesome score on test day.
So, thinking caps on and start cracking down on all the logical fallacies out there!
Yours through the looking glass,
Steve
P.S. Know any other great examples of novels filled with logical reasoning? Let me know!
Recommended Resources:
1. LSAT CoursesThe best of my LSAT material with exclusive access to attend my Live Online LSAT Master Classes + Q&As, and on-demand video lessons you can watch anytime. Plus, LSAT study plans to keep you on track. Save hundreds of dollars with an LSAT course package.
2. Logical Reasoning Explanations
The explanations that should have come with the LSAT. These don't just fall back on "out of scope," but actually tell you why the wrong answers are wrong, why the right answers are right, and the easiest way to get the correct answer.
3. Logical Reasoning Cheat Sheet
Based on what I'd typically do in college: read what the professor emphasized and condense it all onto a single piece of paper. It gave me a quick reference, making things a lot less threatening and a lot more manageable.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment