FR though shoutout JY for all the visuals. It takes a lot of abstract thinking and brain chemistry altering just to get into the mindset of LSAT logic and can definitely be helpful for visual learners!
@LaneyWilliams I come back after went through Group 4. Not both is a Group 4 indicator, and the translation rule is negate either idea, then put it as the necessary condition. This is then translated to J -> /incapable f, contrapositive is incapable f -> /J
@LaneyWilliams The way I interpret this is saying that being a Jedi and incapable of using the force is mutually exclusive. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. Either you are a jedi and are capable of using the force OR are incapable of using the force because you're not a jedi.
I usually use my lightsabre when I'm fighting other folks with lightsabres because it's the best way to demonstrate my ability to use my lightsabre. Does anyone see the problem here? I do.
Some of these examples don't seem to be equivalent in meaning to 'If one is a Jedi, then one uses the Force'.
A number of them seem to treat using the Force as equivalent to being capable of using the Force, which are clearly not equivalent. (2), (3), (4), (7), and (8) at least all merely assert that all Jedi can or are capable of using the Force. This is weaker than the original, which says that all Jedi actually do use the Force.
For my examples I did the following: 1.) If one does not use the force then one is not a Jedi. 2.) If one is not a Jedi one does not use the force. 3. All Jedi's use the force 4.) All Jedis are force users. Are these incorrect?
@Jcruzmed Hey, so the second example is wrong. Being a Jedi is sufficient to use the force, but not necessary to use the force. Jedi is a subset in the superset of users of force. Hope this helps!
Is there a way to know what the superset and the subset is from the if...then language? For the Star Wars example, it seems logical that the Force is the superset and Jedis are a subset, but that is because of outside knowledge. For questions on which we do not have as much context, how can we tell what is what?
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
97 comments
FR though shoutout JY for all the visuals. It takes a lot of abstract thinking and brain chemistry altering just to get into the mindset of LSAT logic and can definitely be helpful for visual learners!
these fuckass memes are getting me through this fuckass test i love them
Is this sound logic: "If one is not a mammal, one is not a cat. Athena is a cat, so she is a mammal."
Translated to lawgic:
/M -> /C
(little A)C
----
(little A)M
Mace Windu meme killed me
The only statement that tripped me up is "No one can be both a Jedi and incapable of using the Force."
Does anyone have helpful tips for parsing out the sufficient and necessary conditions in this statement?
@LaneyWilliams Try using contrapositives or break it down like in the last lesson. /f > /j. Force user is necessary for being Jedi.
@LaneyWilliams same, I can’t see why one claim is sufficient condition of the other
@LaneyWilliams I come back after went through Group 4. Not both is a Group 4 indicator, and the translation rule is negate either idea, then put it as the necessary condition. This is then translated to J -> /incapable f, contrapositive is incapable f -> /J
@RoseL Thank you! I also just revisited, and it clicked!
@LaneyWilliams The way I interpret this is saying that being a Jedi and incapable of using the force is mutually exclusive. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. Either you are a jedi and are capable of using the force OR are incapable of using the force because you're not a jedi.
May the 4th be with you (get it it's May 4th)
谢谢老师。
Mace Windu lowkey had me wanting to be a Jedi
Clearly, I did not study enough Mandarin for the LSAT
@madeinkeaven smh we're so unprepared...
The force is indeed strong in this mothafucka
@rosenb1um I know law schools can see my social media, but can they give me problems over my 7sage comments?
@rosenb1um Nah you're chilling
I think after this I will put on my resume that I’m bilingual. Not in Mandarin, but in Lawgic
I usually use my lightsabre when I'm fighting other folks with lightsabres because it's the best way to demonstrate my ability to use my lightsabre. Does anyone see the problem here? I do.
Jokes on you, I read Chinese
@ChristopherGuo same, lol
the Millennial meme fried me
im really trying to understand #5
#Feedback.
I have a huge problem with using the / rather than the classic negation symbol ~
@JackFoley / is also common in combinatorics. So if you come from even a math/comp. sci background, it is common there as well.
Some of these examples don't seem to be equivalent in meaning to 'If one is a Jedi, then one uses the Force'.
A number of them seem to treat using the Force as equivalent to being capable of using the Force, which are clearly not equivalent. (2), (3), (4), (7), and (8) at least all merely assert that all Jedi can or are capable of using the Force. This is weaker than the original, which says that all Jedi actually do use the Force.
examples
all jedis are force users
those who are not force users can't be jedis
if someone is a jedi they must use the force
‘.’ Lightsaber is spelled wrong
For my examples I did the following: 1.) If one does not use the force then one is not a Jedi. 2.) If one is not a Jedi one does not use the force. 3. All Jedi's use the force 4.) All Jedis are force users. Are these incorrect?
@Jcruzmed Hey, so the second example is wrong. Being a Jedi is sufficient to use the force, but not necessary to use the force. Jedi is a subset in the superset of users of force. Hope this helps!
(6) Only force users can be Jedi. can someone explain the logic behind the statement
@staananico NVM “Only force users can be Jedi” This means that being a force user is a requirement to be a Jedi.
So, if someone is a Jedi, then they must be a force user. That is:
Which is:
This matches statement (9) exactly.
Understanding "Only"
In logic:
The phrase “Only A can be B” translates to: If B, then A.
In our case:
“Only force users can be Jedi” becomes: If someone is a Jedi, then they are a force user → J → F
"The only Jedi are the ones who can use the force".
Cant you use the force without being a Jedi.
@Sameer_Ahamad A Sith can use the Force.
Now I need 7Sage Chinese
Is there a way to know what the superset and the subset is from the if...then language? For the Star Wars example, it seems logical that the Force is the superset and Jedis are a subset, but that is because of outside knowledge. For questions on which we do not have as much context, how can we tell what is what?
@AbigailvanEerden nvm answered my own question lol just took me a second
@AbigailvanEerden Please share explanation! tricky to tell what the superset and subset are on 7 and 8
y'all complaining about the star wars reference are only exposing yourselves for being uncultured. watch them!!!