In the initial stage of my LSAT prep, after I got some LR questions wrong, my tutor would ask me to do the questions again without the correct answers (kind of like BR). I then learned to use symbols and arrows to translate the logic, and then I got 90%–100% of them right. I understand how they work, but how are we going to spend time translating the logic given the limited time on the actual LSAT? I get this frustration because I am still in the beginning stage. But let's see how it goes...
Could the contrapositive also be translated as "the real estate market will not crash since zombies are not attacking new york city"? The original sentence treats zombies attacking new york as an inevitability ("when"), so it seems only right that the contrapositive could be phrased like that as well.
This might seem silly, but I've been avoiding LSAT prep for the longest while because of fear. I started a few days ago and I was feeling really overwhelmed by the volume of content and the fact that it felt like learning a whole new language. I was losing confidence in my abilities, but this lesson helped me close a mental gap. Just understanding this one concept has given me the motivation to keep going! I even teared up a little lol. Thanks, 7Sage and good luck everyone!
How necessary is it to translate these types of questions into Lawgic? It seems pretty time‑consuming. Wouldn’t it be better to simply understand the ideas conceptually rather than doing all the pen‑to‑paper translation?
@adzballroom I believe the translation rule applies to the steps we learned for turning our sentences/conditional logic statements into letter notations, which was introduced here!
For instance, "If one is a Jedi, one uses the Force. Snorlax is a Jedi, and therefore, Snorlax uses the Force." We'd translate this into the Lawgic code by turning Jedi into "J," Force into "F," and Snorlax into a subscript S that precedes either of these letters. All we're trying to do is take out the essence of a sentence and turn an entire conditional argument into a near-oversimplification of letters for the sake of compartmentalizing it in our brains.
The Translation Rule could apply to this statement for it to read,
J -> F
S^J
---
S^F
Expanded,
Jedis use the Force (J -> F)
Snorlax is a Jedi (S^J)
Therefore, (---)
Snorlax uses the Force (S^F)
I hope this was helpful and didn't re-explain anything in a condescending way!! Best of luck on your studies, you got this!
silly question with the over sharing example — is it possible to reframe it as a conditional logic statement?
wasn’t in school -> I peed my pants (conditional)
I didn’t pee my pants -> I was in school (contrapositive)
It’s not a Lawgic moment, because the sentence isn’t really arguing for anything or making a conclusive statement, but doesn’t the same structure apply?
I don't like how instead of breaking down the S/N conditions we are relying on indicators here. We just skipped over why each clause was S or a N condition.
109 comments
In the initial stage of my LSAT prep, after I got some LR questions wrong, my tutor would ask me to do the questions again without the correct answers (kind of like BR). I then learned to use symbols and arrows to translate the logic, and then I got 90%–100% of them right. I understand how they work, but how are we going to spend time translating the logic given the limited time on the actual LSAT? I get this frustration because I am still in the beginning stage. But let's see how it goes...
Could the contrapositive also be translated as "the real estate market will not crash since zombies are not attacking new york city"? The original sentence treats zombies attacking new york as an inevitability ("when"), so it seems only right that the contrapositive could be phrased like that as well.
This might seem silly, but I've been avoiding LSAT prep for the longest while because of fear. I started a few days ago and I was feeling really overwhelmed by the volume of content and the fact that it felt like learning a whole new language. I was losing confidence in my abilities, but this lesson helped me close a mental gap. Just understanding this one concept has given me the motivation to keep going! I even teared up a little lol. Thanks, 7Sage and good luck everyone!
@Jaeann Keep going! I believe in you :)
My way of remembering:
----
Madame Morrible -> MM
/MM -> anything not Madame Morrible
Thus,
Madame Morrible, MM, flip it around... Wicked Witch
The previous instructor a few lessons ago said "the only" is also a sufficient indicator. That was not said here. Confirming that's correct?
the end LMAOOO😭 anyway, im feeling better and better about these! it's getting easier to automatically translate
How necessary is it to translate these types of questions into Lawgic? It seems pretty time‑consuming. Wouldn’t it be better to simply understand the ideas conceptually rather than doing all the pen‑to‑paper translation?
@Forest I agree, with such limited time per LR question, it seems that this might make it more difficult to answer quickly.
@Forest i have been doing it ok without it but not getting to the next level the past 2 months! I will try this now, it makes sense
The only students to pass the class were ones who came to every lecture.
Indicator: the only
Sufficient: pass the class; necessary: attend every lecture
PC --> EL
/EL --> /PC
If you did not come to every lecture, you did not pass the class. Is that sound?
I made flash cards to help memorize group 1-4 conditional indicators, thought I’d share in case it would be helpful to anyone else. I’m redoing this course after getting through most of it and taking the lsat and not doing as well as I hoped. Looking back I realize how important it is to know these. https://quizlet.com/1153975729/lsat-7sage-conditional-indicators-to-share-flash-cards/?i=71yhg9&x=1jqY
@Elideebeep Thank you for sharing this :)
@Cee🦋 No problem :)
@Elideebeep thank you for sharing!
@Elideebeep this is so helpful, gracias!
@saziz55 of course!
@kristinavoneill you got it! :)
What exactly is the Translation Rule? I got confused.
@adzballroom I believe the translation rule applies to the steps we learned for turning our sentences/conditional logic statements into letter notations, which was introduced here!
For instance, "If one is a Jedi, one uses the Force. Snorlax is a Jedi, and therefore, Snorlax uses the Force." We'd translate this into the Lawgic code by turning Jedi into "J," Force into "F," and Snorlax into a subscript S that precedes either of these letters. All we're trying to do is take out the essence of a sentence and turn an entire conditional argument into a near-oversimplification of letters for the sake of compartmentalizing it in our brains.
The Translation Rule could apply to this statement for it to read,
J -> F
S^J
---
S^F
Expanded,
Jedis use the Force (J -> F)
Snorlax is a Jedi (S^J)
Therefore, (---)
Snorlax uses the Force (S^F)
I hope this was helpful and didn't re-explain anything in a condescending way!! Best of luck on your studies, you got this!
@adzballroom The translation rule said that what ever follow after the conditional indicator is the sufficient condition, that is the rule
What benefit will taking the contrapositive give me
How would this concept look w/o the 'if' and 'then' present?
@Mina.G
zombies attacking NYC will crash the real estate market.
in a situation where zombies are attacking nyc, the real estate market will surely crash.
the real estate market will crash after zombies attack nyc.
All people who go to Iv deli get BCCF, it is necessary for a healthy and happy life.
Step 1: All
2: people who go to Iv deli get BCCF… it is necessary for a healthy and happy life
Get BCCF > Happy life
If BCCF is not necessary for a healthy and happy life, then not all people who go to Iv deli get BCCF
"All cars require oil changes, new oil is necessary to function normally."
Step 1: All
Step 2: Cars requiring an oil change to function normally.
Step 3: C, O
Step 4: C -> O
Step 5: /o -> /c
If the car is functioning normally, new oil is not required.
The main concept in my example (if I'm not mistaken) is all cars require oil changes (1) new oil is necessary to function normally (2).
Step 1: when
Step 2: zombies attack NYC, real estate market crash
Step 3: z, m
Step 4: z -> m
Step 5: /m -> /z
when
zombies attack NYC, real estate market crash
z, r
z -> r
/r - > /z or if the real estate market does not crash, zombies will not have attacked nyc
i felt compelled to change the tense when flipping and negating for some reason
silly question with the over sharing example — is it possible to reframe it as a conditional logic statement?
wasn’t in school -> I peed my pants (conditional)
I didn’t pee my pants -> I was in school (contrapositive)
It’s not a Lawgic moment, because the sentence isn’t really arguing for anything or making a conclusive statement, but doesn’t the same structure apply?
Wow i was thinking it has been a long time since a skill builder and it's the next section. I am the wizard
When zombies attack New York City, the real estate market will crash.
Z --> R
/R --> /Z
flip it around wicked witch
@chloerose444 i laughed out loud
wait this is so cool!
just to make sure, sufficient condition always on the left and necessary condition is on the right?
@IslamUmarov in lawgic, yes. in whatever English they throw at you on the lsat, no.
I chose to remember these by using "A,E,I,O,U"
It isn't perfect because you have to think of "W" words instead or words that start with "U" but it was helpful.
A- Any, All
E- Every
I- If
O- The Only
U (W)- Where When
"The only" is the lone "only" indicator that falls in . group 1. Other "only" words are group 2.
if a toddlers mom leaves the room, they run after her.
IF
toddlers mom leaves the room, they run after her.
leaves -> run after
/run after --> /leaves
if the toddler did not run after their mom, she didn't leave the room.
I don't like how instead of breaking down the S/N conditions we are relying on indicators here. We just skipped over why each clause was S or a N condition.