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.
Would have been nice to have touched on the contrapositive in the initial mention of the four steps of translating conditional indicators. Giving mention to it at the end of this lesson feels messy and somewhat threw off my groove #feedback
I was feeling some confusion earlier about sufficient and necessary conditions. My biggest takeaway that helped me get over this hump is that you need to get over how weird the necessary condition sounds and just accept the form of the argument.
Think about the previous Anderson v. King County argument. The necessary condition is showing that the defining characteristic of a class is an immutable trait. In order to achieve the sufficient condition (qualifying as a suspect class) then it is necessary to prove that immutable trait.
The zombies argument can be confusing because the necessary condition of the market crashing, seems like one that can happen because of other reasons. Necessity does not imply the condition at hand is limited to the sufficient claim. Think about the subset, superset forms of this argument. The market crashing is the superset. There are other ways for the market to crash that do not involve the subset of zombies. Maybe there is a smaller subset in the market crashing superset which is a weird virus goes around causing people to shrink into ant-size!
#feedback I'm not sure if this comes up in later lessons but I'm trying to come up with examples using the other logic indicators (i.e., every, all, any), but I'm struggling a bit to see how these can come into use for sufficient conditions. It would be really helpful to see some sample sentences within this video or the except below.
Question - the contrapositive on sufficient conditions confuses me because isn't that saying that the real estate market will only crash if zombies attack NYC, rendering the zombie attack a necessary condition?
Question: Are there specific question types that will or won't use these indicators/lawgic? If so, which types are more likely to use them, or which ones will always/never use lawgic or conditional indicators? I am really struggling with when I am supposed to use this method. I have basically started over at this section to relearn this material. If anyone has a good way to remember this, please help!
Note that the conditional indicators list in the video is missing one of the indicators listed in the text notes ("the only"). I took my notes from the video only, and this sent me over the edge a couple skill builders from now (NfV --> OtE).
I had two questions that i need explanation for. Please help me out with explanation as to why the answer is correct and how the lawgic would work.
1. D=Duck. W=Like Water
Statement: No duck doesn't like water.
Convert to lawgic: D->W (correct answer)
Wrong answer- not D->W (please explain where i went wrong)
Please explain how this lawgic worked.
2. T=Tuesday, W=Go to work
Statement: I only work on tuesdays.
Convert to lawgic: W->T
Wrong answer- T->W (please explain where i went wrong)
Please explain how this lawgic worked.
3. D=Date, F=Funny
Statement: Sarah only dates funny guys.
Convert to lawgic: D->F
Wrong answer: F->D (please explain where i went wrong)
Please explain how this lawgic worked.
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
80 comments
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
wait this is so cool!
just to make sure, sufficient condition always on the left and necessary condition is on the right?
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.
Every Harvard student hates Yale.
Every
Harvard student hates Yale
S --> Y
/Y --> /S (If one does not hate Yale, one is not a Harvard student)
But hating Yale doesn't necessarily mean you're a Harvard student. You could just hate Yale because you dislike their mascot or they rejected you.
when a puppies owners leave, the dog cries
1.when
2.a puppies owners leave, the dog cries
pol, dc
pol->dc
/dc->/pol
Zombies can attack NYC all they want, the rent wont budge
"Where a dog eats a bone, a cat becomes bored"
LAWgic: If DEB then C.B
(If Dog eats bone then Cat Bored)
Would have been nice to have touched on the contrapositive in the initial mention of the four steps of translating conditional indicators. Giving mention to it at the end of this lesson feels messy and somewhat threw off my groove #feedback
I was feeling some confusion earlier about sufficient and necessary conditions. My biggest takeaway that helped me get over this hump is that you need to get over how weird the necessary condition sounds and just accept the form of the argument.
Think about the previous Anderson v. King County argument. The necessary condition is showing that the defining characteristic of a class is an immutable trait. In order to achieve the sufficient condition (qualifying as a suspect class) then it is necessary to prove that immutable trait.
The zombies argument can be confusing because the necessary condition of the market crashing, seems like one that can happen because of other reasons. Necessity does not imply the condition at hand is limited to the sufficient claim. Think about the subset, superset forms of this argument. The market crashing is the superset. There are other ways for the market to crash that do not involve the subset of zombies. Maybe there is a smaller subset in the market crashing superset which is a weird virus goes around causing people to shrink into ant-size!
Is "each" also a sufficient indicator?
Another LSAT learning service includes it in their list.
#feedback
I have a question: Can't the market not crashing be the result of many other factors, and not the facct that zombies are not attacking new york city?
but arent there other things that could cause the real estate market to crash? or in these types of aruments does that not matter?
i found this helpful as a way of notating, in case someone else finds it helpful too:
strip away the modifiers and you'll get:
"zombies attack, market crash"
in notation it becomes ZA --> MC
basically, remove the modifers such that the conditional logic still makes sense in English.
Then assign notations to the logic in English
#feedback I'm not sure if this comes up in later lessons but I'm trying to come up with examples using the other logic indicators (i.e., every, all, any), but I'm struggling a bit to see how these can come into use for sufficient conditions. It would be really helpful to see some sample sentences within this video or the except below.
Question - the contrapositive on sufficient conditions confuses me because isn't that saying that the real estate market will only crash if zombies attack NYC, rendering the zombie attack a necessary condition?
Question: Are there specific question types that will or won't use these indicators/lawgic? If so, which types are more likely to use them, or which ones will always/never use lawgic or conditional indicators? I am really struggling with when I am supposed to use this method. I have basically started over at this section to relearn this material. If anyone has a good way to remember this, please help!
Note that the conditional indicators list in the video is missing one of the indicators listed in the text notes ("the only"). I took my notes from the video only, and this sent me over the edge a couple skill builders from now (NfV --> OtE).
I had two questions that i need explanation for. Please help me out with explanation as to why the answer is correct and how the lawgic would work.
1. D=Duck. W=Like Water
Statement: No duck doesn't like water.
Convert to lawgic: D->W (correct answer)
Wrong answer- not D->W (please explain where i went wrong)
Please explain how this lawgic worked.
2. T=Tuesday, W=Go to work
Statement: I only work on tuesdays.
Convert to lawgic: W->T
Wrong answer- T->W (please explain where i went wrong)
Please explain how this lawgic worked.
3. D=Date, F=Funny
Statement: Sarah only dates funny guys.
Convert to lawgic: D->F
Wrong answer: F->D (please explain where i went wrong)
Please explain how this lawgic worked.