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!
If you're not quite grasping the lesson, I would say do all four groups, then come back to this first one and apply your knowledge. I struggled on a few of these when I first encountered them, but after writing a cheat sheet on a notecard and coming back to them, I clearly see where I was confused before.
5/5 :D I think I was overcomplicating things when I was doing the lessons, but the application helps me see that it's not so difficult! Maybe I'll eat my words later haha
Since the LSAT is digital now, I believe we cannot draw this on a separate piece of paper while taking an exam. Then, where do we write Lawgic while taking the digital LSAT?
Is the ‘if’ in question 2 being treated like an ‘if and only if?’ If not, then the contrapositive doesn’t follow, and if so how does the phrasing indicate the iff?
3.) Wouldn't it be [things cost more -> buy less and use less] and contrapositive would then have to be [/buy less or /use less -> /things cost more]?
5.) Same idea here. Wouldn't it technically be [tree -> perennial plant and elongated stem], therefore making the contrapositive [/perennial plant or /elongated stem -> /tree]?
How do you know when to, and when NOT to, use the "and" when using Lawgic? This really trips me up- I would really appreciate help with this. Thank you!
Can questions 3 technically be broken down into two Lawgic statements (More cost -> buy less and More cost -> use less)? Does the word "and" bind them together in such a way that they can't/shouldn't be split? I can see that for the sake of time, it makes sense to put them together but am I breaking any rule if I happen to split them up?
For #2, I put >40 and am checking/double checking to make sure that there isn't any hidden nuance in it being considered the same as "over 40". We talk a lot about making assumptions for things like this, i.e. "not taller" doesn't necessarily mean shorter (could be equal height). But I'm thinking "over" and "greater than" are meaning the same here. Yes, I'm probably overthinking the hell out of this, but trying to get into the right frame of mind on these.
For question 5: How come trees, perennial plants and elegated stem aren't given their own symbol. I would imagine tree being the super set and the planet being a subset and the elevated stem being the membership in the stem.
Opti is a sufficient condition for sailboat because by its nature it triggers being a sailboat, however it is no neccesary because there are other boats that trigger being a sailboat(j22, mercury, ect.)
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!
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.
214 comments
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!
4/5, 5 kind of tripped me up
3/5 its easier when its postive for sure
What does the parentheses mean in some of these answer choices?
If you're not quite grasping the lesson, I would say do all four groups, then come back to this first one and apply your knowledge. I struggled on a few of these when I first encountered them, but after writing a cheat sheet on a notecard and coming back to them, I clearly see where I was confused before.
Number 5 doesn't feel conditional can someone explain why it would be in more clear terms?
typo in answer for question 4
5/5 :D I think I was overcomplicating things when I was doing the lessons, but the application helps me see that it's not so difficult! Maybe I'll eat my words later haha
Since the LSAT is digital now, I believe we cannot draw this on a separate piece of paper while taking an exam. Then, where do we write Lawgic while taking the digital LSAT?
I did the last three wrong. I thought if sufficient, it belongs on the right side... it's kind of confusing.
Is the ‘if’ in question 2 being treated like an ‘if and only if?’ If not, then the contrapositive doesn’t follow, and if so how does the phrasing indicate the iff?
5/5 yay!:)
On 1,2 and 3 I did it backwards. Like NSA-> NR when was NR-> NSA
I also got mixed up with 5...
Wow.. these throw me off HARD. Especially when the statement is false
Need help on this question:
3.) Wouldn't it be [things cost more -> buy less and use less] and contrapositive would then have to be [/buy less or /use less -> /things cost more]?
5.) Same idea here. Wouldn't it technically be [tree -> perennial plant and elongated stem], therefore making the contrapositive [/perennial plant or /elongated stem -> /tree]?
How do you know when to, and when NOT to, use the "and" when using Lawgic? This really trips me up- I would really appreciate help with this. Thank you!
#help
Can questions 3 technically be broken down into two Lawgic statements (More cost -> buy less and More cost -> use less)? Does the word "and" bind them together in such a way that they can't/shouldn't be split? I can see that for the sake of time, it makes sense to put them together but am I breaking any rule if I happen to split them up?
i got confused on #3 and #4 and did them in opposite order. whats the easiest way to spot this
For #2, I put >40 and am checking/double checking to make sure that there isn't any hidden nuance in it being considered the same as "over 40". We talk a lot about making assumptions for things like this, i.e. "not taller" doesn't necessarily mean shorter (could be equal height). But I'm thinking "over" and "greater than" are meaning the same here. Yes, I'm probably overthinking the hell out of this, but trying to get into the right frame of mind on these.
For question 5: How come trees, perennial plants and elegated stem aren't given their own symbol. I would imagine tree being the super set and the planet being a subset and the elevated stem being the membership in the stem.
Does it matter if I have it flipped. Like if I say for question 1:
/see arun---> in next room
/ in next roon --> see Arun
instead of what they have:
in next room → /see him
see him → /(in next room)
All optis are sailboats
O-->SB
If it is not a sailboat it is not an opti
/SB-->O
Opti is a sufficient condition for sailboat because by its nature it triggers being a sailboat, however it is no neccesary because there are other boats that trigger being a sailboat(j22, mercury, ect.)
Re question 3:
I've read elsewhere that in formal logic, when tranlating a necessary condition like (X&Y) to the contrapositive it becomes /(X or Y).
if ^C → B&U less
/(B or U) less → /(^C)
By the logic of this question, are the following valid?
If people are not buying less, costs have not increased.
If people are not using less, costs have not increased.
Or can it only be true that both must be present to conclude that costs have not increased?
Thanks for any help!
#feedback
Could #2 not be
"/learn --> 40+"
contra: /40+ --> learn
?