So just to clarify, if a conditional statement has the word "must" in it, does that indicate the necessary condition? For example, consider this statement: "If I go to the store, then it must be Tuesday." So applying Lawgic, it would translate to S → T or /T → /S. So it is something that is required in order for the condition to become true?
I think if we’re looking at a conditional statement it’s usually in the If → Then format. “Then” can also be swapped out for a comma lots of times. In your sentence, “If I go to the store, then it must be Tuesday.” We can alter it to be “If I go to the store, it’s Tuesday” and still have the same result of a valid conditional statement. I think Then/commas are more appropriate of an indicator than the word ‘must’
@2dillanahmed15 Must would be an indicator of a property always associated with a condition, ie. the condition being going to the store and the property being Tuesday, and I think statements following must are generally the necessary condition. Going to the store is a sufficient condition to deduce that it must be Tuesday, and it being Tuesday is a necessary condition for one to go to the store.
Just going to point out that the indicators are called "conditional indicators" in the first half of the video starting at about 1:10, however they are changed to "logical indicators" by the end. This might confuse some people.
Unrelated but i just switched to V2 so I am lightly reviewing everything I already went through on V1 but on V2. I really appreciate the speed of these videos! I feel like the other ones went super fast (which is also appreciated) but this pace makes me feel less anxious while learning lol
There are 2 versions of the course. V1 is the version including Logical Games and V2 is the updated version that doesn't include it. The LSAT no longer tests on Logical Games.
#help I am still struggling to understand the immutable trait example for some reason. I just don't get why the reverse is not true.
It makes more sense to me to say,
"IF they make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait, THEN the plaintiffs qualify as a suspect class for the purpose of equal protection analysis."
Can someone please break this down if they were also confused but found a way to understand it better?
You need to negate it to make it logically equivalent. so in logic it would look like /Y → /X. this would translate back to:
"If they DO NOT make a showing that the characteristic defining the case is an immutable trait, then the plaintiffs DO NOT qualify as a suspect class for the purpose of equal protection analysis".
Your example would not be logically equivalent because it confuses sufficiency for necessity.
Would Once you realize this, you see that it doesn’t matter what ideas go into this structure also be a conditional statement, with realizing it being sufficient for seeing that it doesn't matter what ideas for into the structure?
---------
If you can't see that it doesn't matter what ideas go into the structure, then you can't realize this.
I did not see that it doesn't matter, therefore I did not realize this.
---------
I realized this; therefore I see it doesn't matter
I honestly found this lesson on Lawgic to be pretty cool and easy. of course when I'm done with my study plan I will run drills and take a ton of test to make sure I know how to do it on my own, overall though pretty good lesson. #LSATInSeptemeber
I feel like lawgic is a nice concept to briefly go over but I do not find it necessary in order to understand arguments in the LSAT better. If anything, it would waste more valuable time during the test to use lawgic
I am reviewing this section after completing most of this course and I just want to mention that I strongly disagree with this concept. I have used Lawgic throughout this entire course and will certainly use it on the test when I am confused. Obviously everyone is different, but I would hang in there if I were you.
100%, I personally don't find a lot of merit in doing this either but am doing it either way just in case something useful does come up. I feel like I'll never use lawgic and its just making things more complicated than it is sadly
To me, lawgic seems to be a formulated way to decipher arguments for those who cannot automatically do so in their head. If you were to use scratch paper and write down lawgic when going through arguments while taking the test, not only would it waste time, it also would train your brain to be dependent on that way of deciphering arguments. It is not for everyone and does not have to be.
Would be great to have a skillbuilder lesson before this one to help us practice all the things we learned in this category so we don't forget them by the time we get to the actual first skillbuilder coming up.
#help In conditional premises, if we change the binding in the second idea to something weaker and indefinite like "may", does that remove the necessary condition from the relationship altogether?
for example: If one is a Jedi, then one may be on the Jedi Council.
But this doesn't imply that everyone on the Jedi council is a Jedi. I think visually this would look like a Venn Diagram, but I am not sure if that is accurate or if this example is outside the scope of conditional relationships.
It may be helpful to note that when 'If' is used to indicate sufficiency, the word 'then' is usually used to indicate necessity. "If you are in New York, then you are in the U.S.".
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.
27 comments
Justin Herbert
@dokocha0216 I was going to type the same thing
"if" : Conditional indicator ?
As I am reviewing my conditional rules, a bank of diagrams in one place would be helpful. Does that exist?
So just to clarify, if a conditional statement has the word "must" in it, does that indicate the necessary condition? For example, consider this statement: "If I go to the store, then it must be Tuesday." So applying Lawgic, it would translate to S → T or /T → /S. So it is something that is required in order for the condition to become true?
I think if we’re looking at a conditional statement it’s usually in the If → Then format. “Then” can also be swapped out for a comma lots of times. In your sentence, “If I go to the store, then it must be Tuesday.” We can alter it to be “If I go to the store, it’s Tuesday” and still have the same result of a valid conditional statement. I think Then/commas are more appropriate of an indicator than the word ‘must’
@2dillanahmed15 Must would be an indicator of a property always associated with a condition, ie. the condition being going to the store and the property being Tuesday, and I think statements following must are generally the necessary condition. Going to the store is a sufficient condition to deduce that it must be Tuesday, and it being Tuesday is a necessary condition for one to go to the store.
Just going to point out that the indicators are called "conditional indicators" in the first half of the video starting at about 1:10, however they are changed to "logical indicators" by the end. This might confuse some people.
Unrelated but i just switched to V2 so I am lightly reviewing everything I already went through on V1 but on V2. I really appreciate the speed of these videos! I feel like the other ones went super fast (which is also appreciated) but this pace makes me feel less anxious while learning lol
So true! V2 feels way easier to understand
what is V2?
There are 2 versions of the course. V1 is the version including Logical Games and V2 is the updated version that doesn't include it. The LSAT no longer tests on Logical Games.
#help I am still struggling to understand the immutable trait example for some reason. I just don't get why the reverse is not true.
It makes more sense to me to say,
"IF they make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait, THEN the plaintiffs qualify as a suspect class for the purpose of equal protection analysis."
Can someone please break this down if they were also confused but found a way to understand it better?
You need to negate it to make it logically equivalent. so in logic it would look like /Y → /X. this would translate back to:
"If they DO NOT make a showing that the characteristic defining the case is an immutable trait, then the plaintiffs DO NOT qualify as a suspect class for the purpose of equal protection analysis".
Your example would not be logically equivalent because it confuses sufficiency for necessity.
Would Once you realize this, you see that it doesn’t matter what ideas go into this structure also be a conditional statement, with realizing it being sufficient for seeing that it doesn't matter what ideas for into the structure?
---------
If you can't see that it doesn't matter what ideas go into the structure, then you can't realize this.
I did not see that it doesn't matter, therefore I did not realize this.
---------
I realized this; therefore I see it doesn't matter
Could anyone explain this to me please: "If X, Y" says that X is sufficient for Y and Y is necessary for X.
I am very confused and would appreciate any #help
X and Y are standing in for whatever the content of a sentence may be; it's a formula.
If X (one is a Jedi), Y (then one is a Force user)
X is sufficient for Y:
- being a Jedi is sufficient to be a Force user (it's a subset); you can be a Jedi(X) if you can use the force (Y)
Y is necessary for X:
- To be a Jedi, one has to be a force user (force user is the superset); you can't be a Jedi(X) without being able to use the force(Y)
I hope that helps!
Yes! Thank you sooo much!!
I honestly found this lesson on Lawgic to be pretty cool and easy. of course when I'm done with my study plan I will run drills and take a ton of test to make sure I know how to do it on my own, overall though pretty good lesson. #LSATInSeptemeber
I feel like lawgic is a nice concept to briefly go over but I do not find it necessary in order to understand arguments in the LSAT better. If anything, it would waste more valuable time during the test to use lawgic
I am reviewing this section after completing most of this course and I just want to mention that I strongly disagree with this concept. I have used Lawgic throughout this entire course and will certainly use it on the test when I am confused. Obviously everyone is different, but I would hang in there if I were you.
100%, I personally don't find a lot of merit in doing this either but am doing it either way just in case something useful does come up. I feel like I'll never use lawgic and its just making things more complicated than it is sadly
To me, lawgic seems to be a formulated way to decipher arguments for those who cannot automatically do so in their head. If you were to use scratch paper and write down lawgic when going through arguments while taking the test, not only would it waste time, it also would train your brain to be dependent on that way of deciphering arguments. It is not for everyone and does not have to be.
Would be great to have a skillbuilder lesson before this one to help us practice all the things we learned in this category so we don't forget them by the time we get to the actual first skillbuilder coming up.
#help In conditional premises, if we change the binding in the second idea to something weaker and indefinite like "may", does that remove the necessary condition from the relationship altogether?
for example: If one is a Jedi, then one may be on the Jedi Council.
But this doesn't imply that everyone on the Jedi council is a Jedi. I think visually this would look like a Venn Diagram, but I am not sure if that is accurate or if this example is outside the scope of conditional relationships.
Great question
It may be helpful to note that when 'If' is used to indicate sufficiency, the word 'then' is usually used to indicate necessity. "If you are in New York, then you are in the U.S.".