confused a bit on 4 and this concept in general, what is basing the assumption that it is a complete universal rule without a word like "all?"number five makes complete sense to me because of the phrasing but for example, for number 4, could it not be true that where judges are independent there will be a good legal system AND there is a not good legal system that also happens to have judges that are independent?
I am getting the format right and understanding it decently, however, in all my answers, I didn't put the brackets. Can someone remind me what the point of that is?
This made sense, I just had to catch myself wanting to make the most common mistake on the LSAT! I wrote younger than 40, which is NOT the negation of 40!
7
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.
251 comments
5 out of 5, and that feels very good, seeing how things were when I first started. This used to be a foreign language to me.
I do not understand why I still find number 1 confusing, can someone explain it for me? please
Yessss, I am doing great with these so far!
can someone explain 5 to me? I get the conditional indicator "All" but it didn't feel like, if and then, Maybe I'm overthinking?
confused a bit on 4 and this concept in general, what is basing the assumption that it is a complete universal rule without a word like "all?"number five makes complete sense to me because of the phrasing but for example, for number 4, could it not be true that where judges are independent there will be a good legal system AND there is a not good legal system that also happens to have judges that are independent?
4/5! Got the 1st one wrong because by changing the order I was changing the meaning, once I realized my mistake it was smooth sailing from there!
Hello! Can someone better explain the use of parentheses when taking the contrapositive in Group One translations? Thank you!
Why would it be want to learn to ski -> /over 40? Shouldn't there be a "/" in front of the want to learn to ski?
Edit: Is it because of the negative in the original statement: "Amar would NOT want to learn to ski..."?
I am getting the format right and understanding it decently, however, in all my answers, I didn't put the brackets. Can someone remind me what the point of that is?
okay like how necessary is it for me to rlly know this lol
I understood it but where to place each idea messed me up.
Doe matter which side I put each idea being related? Because it looks like I mix them up quite often compared to the answers.
The lesson on negation versus opposition was really helpful here.
4/5. Got mixed up on Q3
5/5!
5/5, we got this!! It's all just formula!
Premises don't have to be true to have a valid arguement. It was good to be able to recall that on 4!
I needed this burned into my brain: if x, then y.
If X -> Then Y
X -> Y
If he were over 40 (X), then Amar would not want to learn to ski /(Y).
The contrapositive is if not Y, then not X.
/Y -> /X
If amar would NOT not want to learn to ski (if he would want to learn to ski), then he is NOT over 40.
Caution: This is not the same as "only if."
4/5
for question 3, is the "and" not converted into an "or" when flipped and reversed?
Can we translate the #5 this way
PerP—>Tree-es
/Tree -es ->/ PerP
Anyone else notice that Question 4 has a misspelling of Independent in the answer or have I just been a paralegal for too long..
How is #5 a conditional statement
5/5
This made sense, I just had to catch myself wanting to make the most common mistake on the LSAT! I wrote younger than 40, which is NOT the negation of 40!