This was SO helpful! Do you have anything for the group 2 indicators? Mnemonics have been life savers for me throughout my career (as a student and a professional)!
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.
I like Star Wars too but at this point, it is just boring me. So many other sci-fi properties out there to use. I appreciate JY trying to keep this fun but when you say the same thing over and over and over, it starts to lose its meaning.
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!
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).
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?
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.
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...
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?
Not exactly, the contrapositive here stipulates that if the market is not crashing, we know for a fact that a zombie attack is not occurring. This is because a market crash is a necessary consequence to a zombie attack. Hope this helps!
When zombies attack New York City, the real estate market will crash.
If the real estate market is not crashing, then zombies are not attacking New York City.
Remember, the Conditional Statement and its Contrapositive express the same idea. Nowhere does it say that it is necessary for there to be a real estate market crash for there to be a zombie attack in NYC, and so we cannot infer it. To say that would be akin to saying "It is necessary for a mammal to be a cat" which is not reflected in either of the conditional statements.
Also for the cat and mammal example I viewed it as for X is sufficient for Y = Being a cat is a sufficient condition for being a mammal and for Y is necessary for X = Being a mammal is necessary for being a cat. Would this be correct...this is so confusing lol
Based on our rules on Lawgic and our lessons on sets, the clause preceding the arrow is the subset and the clause proceeding the arrow is the superset. And supersets subsume subsets. And supersets are the necessary condition and subsets are the sufficient condition.
In this example, Z > REC, zombies is the subset and real estate market is the superset. So I don't see how it's wrong to say that real estate market crashes are necessary for zombie attacks. Ignoring the truth of this statement, it is still valid based on what we have learned so far.
Yes, you've got it right with the X and Y. As I progress through this course, though, I've found it more useful to say this:
To say one is X is sufficient to conclude that one is Y.
Here's what I mean:
If something is a cat, then is it is necessarily a mammal.
Because of that fact, if I tell you something is a cat, that is sufficient information for you to conclude that it is also mammal.
Remember, sufficiency and necessity are relationship, and so it makes sense that they are connected in this way.
But what we cannot conclude that to be a mammal necessarily means to be a cat.
So let's take this statement again:
When zombies attack New York City, the real estate market will crash.
"If zombies attack New York City" is the sufficient condition and "the real estate market will crash" is the necessary condition.
In this case, if zombies have attacked New York City, then the real estate market will necessarily crash.
Because of that fact, if I tell you the zombies have attacked New York City, that is sufficient information for you to conclude that the real estate market will crash.
But that's all we know. Surely other things could cause the real estate market will crash. A global pandemic, for instance, or an alien invasion, or all kinds of other catastrophes. In those cases, the real estate market might crash, but it would have nothing to do with a zombie attack.
We cannot conclude that a real estate market crash necessarily means there has been a zombie invasion.
114 comments
Group 1 indicators: introduce the sufficient condition
a - all, any (+ as long as—rare indicator, but still used)
e - every
i - if
o - the only
double u (W) - when/whenever, where
or
We need group 1: If We Want TO Earn An A.
adding this helpful comment from V1 here to V2!
This was SO helpful! Do you have anything for the group 2 indicators? Mnemonics have been life savers for me throughout my career (as a student and a professional)!
thank you!
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! :)
flip it around wicked witch
@chloerose444 i laughed out loud
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.
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.
@ImanMozaffarian This was actually such a helpful explanation and answer to my question when trying to understand this on my own. Thank you so much!
Enough with the Jedi example!
As a star wars nerd this hurts
I like Star Wars too but at this point, it is just boring me. So many other sci-fi properties out there to use. I appreciate JY trying to keep this fun but when you say the same thing over and over and over, it starts to lose its meaning.
My way of remembering:
----
Madame Morrible -> MM
/MM -> anything not Madame Morrible
Thus,
Madame Morrible, MM, flip it around... Wicked Witch
Wow i was thinking it has been a long time since a skill builder and it's the next section. I am the wizard
Zombies can attack NYC all they want, the rent wont budge
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 :)
@Jaeann took the words right out of my mouth!
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 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
the end LMAOOO😭 anyway, im feeling better and better about these! it's getting easier to automatically translate
wait this is so cool!
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).
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
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.
Can we use the contrapositve as a way to essentially double check our work in translating an argument into Lawgic?
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...
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 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?
What benefit will taking the contrapositive give me
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?
Not exactly, the contrapositive here stipulates that if the market is not crashing, we know for a fact that a zombie attack is not occurring. This is because a market crash is a necessary consequence to a zombie attack. Hope this helps!
Can we look at the sufficiency and necessity relationship from the lens:
Zombi invasion of new york is sufficient for NYC real estate market to crash.
Is the necessary condition, therefore, that it is necessary for there to be a real estate market crash for there to be a zombie attack in NYC
No, I don't think this is right.
Let's look at this example again:
If one is a cat, then one is a mammal.
If one is not a mammal, then one is not a cat.
This maps over to the current example:
When zombies attack New York City, the real estate market will crash.
If the real estate market is not crashing, then zombies are not attacking New York City.
Remember, the Conditional Statement and its Contrapositive express the same idea. Nowhere does it say that it is necessary for there to be a real estate market crash for there to be a zombie attack in NYC, and so we cannot infer it. To say that would be akin to saying "It is necessary for a mammal to be a cat" which is not reflected in either of the conditional statements.
I understand this but the previous lesson on "Indicators for conditional arguments" stated that X is sufficient for Y and Y is necessary for X.
That's why I am confused about why the statement is wrong that the real estate market crashing is necessary for zombies to attack NYC
Thank you though for your explanation! I got a bit more understanding I am just stuck on the part I mentioned above
#help #feedback
Also for the cat and mammal example I viewed it as for X is sufficient for Y = Being a cat is a sufficient condition for being a mammal and for Y is necessary for X = Being a mammal is necessary for being a cat. Would this be correct...this is so confusing lol
#help #feedback
I'm still a bit confused.
Based on our rules on Lawgic and our lessons on sets, the clause preceding the arrow is the subset and the clause proceeding the arrow is the superset. And supersets subsume subsets. And supersets are the necessary condition and subsets are the sufficient condition.
In this example, Z > REC, zombies is the subset and real estate market is the superset. So I don't see how it's wrong to say that real estate market crashes are necessary for zombie attacks. Ignoring the truth of this statement, it is still valid based on what we have learned so far.
Yes, you've got it right with the X and Y. As I progress through this course, though, I've found it more useful to say this:
To say one is X is sufficient to conclude that one is Y.
Here's what I mean:
If something is a cat, then is it is necessarily a mammal.
Because of that fact, if I tell you something is a cat, that is sufficient information for you to conclude that it is also mammal.
Remember, sufficiency and necessity are relationship, and so it makes sense that they are connected in this way.
But what we cannot conclude that to be a mammal necessarily means to be a cat.
So let's take this statement again:
When zombies attack New York City, the real estate market will crash.
"If zombies attack New York City" is the sufficient condition and "the real estate market will crash" is the necessary condition.
In this case, if zombies have attacked New York City, then the real estate market will necessarily crash.
Because of that fact, if I tell you the zombies have attacked New York City, that is sufficient information for you to conclude that the real estate market will crash.
But that's all we know. Surely other things could cause the real estate market will crash. A global pandemic, for instance, or an alien invasion, or all kinds of other catastrophes. In those cases, the real estate market might crash, but it would have nothing to do with a zombie attack.
We cannot conclude that a real estate market crash necessarily means there has been a zombie invasion.
I hope this helps!
I legit just had an "ahhhhh" moment. Thank you so much your breakdown has helped me understand better!
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.