@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.
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!
@ImanMozaffarian "Necessity does not imply the condition at hand is limited to the sufficient claim." This is very helpful and answers exactly what I came here to ask.
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.
98 comments
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
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.
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.
@kyorofan20 that's when not questioning the reality of the question comes into play!
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!
@ImanMozaffarian "Necessity does not imply the condition at hand is limited to the sufficient claim." This is very helpful and answers exactly what I came here to ask.
Is "each" also a sufficient indicator?
Another LSAT learning service includes it in their list.
#feedback