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?
I'm not necessarily the greatest fan of 'Lawgic'. I'd prefer a method to break down the massive questions on the LSAT quickly without having to take time to draw up maps or scientific notation. Unfortunately, I have no alternative ideas than shortening the general idea down currently.
I believe the idea is to drill "lawgic" notation until it becomes second nature. Ideally, you wouldn't have to take the time to translate the stimuli into lawgic notation because you will have practiced it so often that you can quickly and confidently identify the necessary and sufficient conditions.
I didn't even know Jedi was from Star Wars lol. But I found this example more suitable for ppl who are unfamiliar with the content like me to grasp the concept of conditional logic bcs it exactly proves JY's original point - the content doesn't matter, only the form does.
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
86 comments
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!!!
I'm not necessarily the greatest fan of 'Lawgic'. I'd prefer a method to break down the massive questions on the LSAT quickly without having to take time to draw up maps or scientific notation. Unfortunately, I have no alternative ideas than shortening the general idea down currently.
agreed, any update?
I believe the idea is to drill "lawgic" notation until it becomes second nature. Ideally, you wouldn't have to take the time to translate the stimuli into lawgic notation because you will have practiced it so often that you can quickly and confidently identify the necessary and sufficient conditions.
#feedback I have never seen Star Wars. Another example would be GREAT. Maybe not a movie example.. something with animals or idk.
I didn't even know Jedi was from Star Wars lol. But I found this example more suitable for ppl who are unfamiliar with the content like me to grasp the concept of conditional logic bcs it exactly proves JY's original point - the content doesn't matter, only the form does.
you should, Star Wars is awesome
Seriously.. It has to be one of the top movies in the entire world - ever.
haven't seen Star Wars before but have some form of an idea of it luckily, feel like maybe we coulda used a different example
What could be more awesome than Mace Windu
THE FORCE IS STRONG MOFOS
LOVE the fact that I very recently watched the entire star wars series LOL
Who knew that LSAT prep would make me want to binge Star Wars!