The Logic Chain and Compound Conditional Statements

[noah]

How do you go about mapping out compound conditional statements? The book lets us know that there are two special compound conditional statements that can't be broken up ( "if x and y then z" and "if x then y or z"), but then ignores them when explaining how to map out conditional statements. If there's a game with one of those, are we to just abandon the logic chain system? Thanks!

Yeah, these types of statements do stretch the chain bit (pardon the pun, if there was one). As you noted, we generally recommend writing those conditions to the side, and for two reasons: 1, they can make the diagram pretty messy -- and every diagram has its strengths and weaknesses, and messiness is the weakness of this one -- and 2, the LSAT rarely employs the contrapositive of such statements, and adding in those can be quite a burden.

That said, if there's only one of those statements and it doesn't seem that drawing it in will make your diagram a catastrophe, you can draw them in by connecting the two items that connect (i.e., with "If J then K or L", I'm talking about connecting K and L, but with "If M and Q then Z", we're talking about connecting M and Q). Then, where they connect, putting a circle with:
- "=1" for only 1,
- "1+" for an either (though not an "either, but not both", which would require "=1").
- or a "2" if both are required

If the game is all about compound conditionals, you can write in your elements in groups. So, if a rule says "If M and K then R", you could write "M + K" as an element on the In side of your diagram. Similarly, you could write something like "K or P" on the out, if only one of those is triggered. Here's an example where that comes in handy, june-2000-pt31-s1-q7-13-a-music-store-carries-ten-t209.html though it's the diagram that causes the most uproar against the chain!

I hope that helps.

[nazu.s.shaikh]

This might sound like a silly one, but for conditional statements.. is it safe to say that the presence of the word "if" and what follows after it would always be a sufficient condition?

For example

K is at R, if J is at S.

The way I read this is : " What is needed for K to be at R? J at S. Hence J at S brings about K at R"

Then conclude that J at S is the sufficient condition.

I tend to over analyze everything and confuse myself even of the simplest things.

[noah]

is it safe to say that the presence of the word "if" and what follows after it would always be a sufficient condition?

That's usually the case, but there are variations, such as "only if" and "if, and only if", so it's best to not make the process automatized in the sense that you don't consider which part is required, and thus, necessary.

For example

K is at R, if J is at S.

The way I read this is : " What is needed for K to be at R? J at S. Hence J at S brings about K at R"

Then conclude that J at S is the sufficient condition.

Be careful - J at S is not needed for K to be at R in that example. If it were needed, it would be on the necessary side. As you said, it's sufficient.

I tend to over analyze everything and confuse myself even of the simplest things.

Try playing the If/Then game in the LSAT arcade - http://www.atlaslsat.com/arcade
It should help you practice this.

Have fun!