The thing that has helped me the best is trying to think of these are the subset/superset and then build the Lawgic based off of that.
Another thing I keep in mind is the idea that, membership in the subset in necessary for membership in the superset, BUT membership in the superset is not sufficient for membership in the subset.
Translation: If I am inside my room, I am also inside of my house (If I am in the subset, I am also in the superset).
BUT if I am in my house that does not mean I am in my room (If I am in the superset, that does not mean I am in the subset, there maybe some other door I need to enter before I can be in the subset)
I really struggled with this one (got many wrong) any tips? They all seem so relative like either or clause could be sufficient or necessary... what am I missing?
I struggled with this section. One thing that helps to think about for which part is sufficient and which necessary is to give counterexamples that are the negation of each clause.
For example, on question 2: "Businesses do the environmentally “right” thing only if doing so makes good business sense." We have 2 clauses:
Do ... right thing ...
Makes good business sense ...
To give a negation example, let's ask "What if doing so makes only ok business sense? Can businesses do the environmentally right thing then?" No, it is explicitly stated that businesses do the right thing *only* when doing so makes "good" business sense. There is a restriction.
On the other hand, let's ask "If businesses do an environmentally 'neutral' thing (or a 'wrong' thing), does doing so have to mean that action does not make good business sense?" No, we're not restricted given the information we have. The action could be environmentally neutral and make a lot of good business sense.
So we know that the clause "Good business sense..." is the necessary part (which doesn't rely on the action being environmentally "right").
Realllllly struggled with any of variation of "only" statements until I realized that:
“The only” → sufficient
“Only / only if / only when” → necessary
“The only” singles out a group and says that all of them must satisfy some property. That’s the same pattern as “all” or “every.”
Examples:
The only students invited are seniors.
Translation: If you're invited, you're invited, you're a senior
Symbolize: Invited → Senior
The only animals in the room are cats.
Translation: Every animal in the room is a cat.
Symbolize: In room → Cat
The only oral myths that survived are the ones written down.
Translation: All the oral myths that survived were written down.
Symbolize: Survived → Written down
This concept really really frustrated me for a long time and made me feel like I was stupid!! I hope this can help anyone else going through something similar <3
Question 3 is confusing for me as well. I wanted to ask the group a question. How would I diagram the nest in the summit of the Andes and the highest birds of prey nest?
So if the key word is in the beginning the x —-> y is backwards……??..? I’m lost on #3 why wouldn’t it be if you’re the highest flying bird of prey you nest in the summits of Andes?
Why is it if you nest in the summits of the Andes you are the highest flying birds of prey? Is it a general rule if the keyword (only) is in the beginning it is going to be backwards ? Pls guide Ty
This Skill Builder video was so much better than the last one. You are now reading out the contrapositive in English, and that helps us relate it back to the test. After all, the test is all in English, as you have said many times previously.
Thank you! Hopefully all the videos moving forward will continue this trend of bring Lawgic back to English, so that we are clear how we should interpret and use this to our benefit.
*TIP* (Cause I’m not intuitive at all). I try to think of it in terms of language parameters: All + subject + verb + object. The subject is exhaustive and therefore, is the sufficient clause encased by the object. Otherwise. Only + subject + verb + object. The subject is limited in scope. Just because only one group does something, it leaves the possibility that not all in that group do it. Therefore the second clause, is needed to create the conditional parameters. I would start with the subject (or clause being modified by the conditional indicator words). And then consider whether that subject/claim is exhaustive or limited. Hope this helps? This how I think it out :)
I am genuinely so confused on how to know which side of the arrow the conditions go on. Full transparency I skipped much of the "foundations" curriculum but I had to come back to this part because I am so stuck when dealing with the logical reasoning questions. Please #help
Can someone give me an example of the type of question that will be asked or these types of questions? If im given a conditional question on the real exam, how will the question be asked? IM understanding the steps to take to inure out the conditions but how will the questions be asked? Thank you!
I dont know if this is helpful to anyone else but something that helps conditional logic make more intuitive sense to me is comparing the contrapositive i get from the initial statement. What I'm looking for is if I have confused the subset for the superset. It is something that has worked for me but Idk if its really helpful for anyone else or when it comes to more confusing sentences.
I am not sure how to regard the word only. In the previous exercise. it was said that it's a group 1 indicator but here it's treated as a necessary condition indicator. Why is that?
Question 1 has a sufficient and necessary indicator word. This skill builder indicates this is for group 2 indicators meanwhile it uses the sufficient indicator word to translate the statement.
For me, depending on the statement, I find it easier not to think about which indicator word is being used, but instead I create the contrapositive statement and see if that makes sense.
For example, #3: lets say you flip the sufficient and necessary conditions on accident - highest flying bird → nests in the Andes, contrapositive being if does not nest in the andes → not the highest flying bird - I know this is incorrect because it assumes the highest flying bird ONLY nest in the Andes, which is not necessarily true based off the context given, so more logically it is nest in andes→highest flying bird
I suggest keeping the indicator words in the back of your mind, but not as the first thing you turn to when breaking down conditional arguments. These practice examples (especially number here and in the last one) show that many words can be used immediately before a sufficient condition, even if they are on the necessary condition indicator list. Especially the word only.
It helps me to manipulate the sentence until the logic being deployed is clear to the way my brain works. Often that means drawing a visual diagram first, either in my mind or on the page. That can also mean substituting in other words -- for "only", often "all" is a good one to substitute.
For number three here, I reworded the sentence in my brain to: "All birds who nest in the summits of the Andes are the highest flying birds of prey." Written this way, "birds who nest in the summits of the Andes" is clearly the SUFFICIENT condition to "are the highest flying birds of prey". But this also just makes sense if you think about the sentence visually. "Highest flying birds of pray" should be a larger bubble -- there are probably plenty that don't nest up high. "Nest in the summits of the Andes" should be a smaller bubble, because it's more specific.
Messing around with the language, and thinking of the sentence visually, helps to manipulate the logic so that it makes most sense to you. Be careful about relying too heavily on indicator words.
For the ones that get flipped (not listed in their sentence order), what is the simple way for me to know when to flip it around and not just list left to right? IE numbers 3 and 5
2
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!
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.
106 comments
The thing that has helped me the best is trying to think of these are the subset/superset and then build the Lawgic based off of that.
Another thing I keep in mind is the idea that, membership in the subset in necessary for membership in the superset, BUT membership in the superset is not sufficient for membership in the subset.
Translation: If I am inside my room, I am also inside of my house (If I am in the subset, I am also in the superset).
BUT if I am in my house that does not mean I am in my room (If I am in the superset, that does not mean I am in the subset, there maybe some other door I need to enter before I can be in the subset)
Example of how I drew out the first 3 questions
I really struggled with this one (got many wrong) any tips? They all seem so relative like either or clause could be sufficient or necessary... what am I missing?
Reminder:
Group 1 Indicators indicate sufficient conditions
Ex: If, When, Where, All, Every, Any
Translation Rule: The idea immediately following the conditional indicator is the sufficient condition.
...whereas...
Group 2 Indicators indicate necessary conditons
Ex: Only, Only if, Only when, Only where, Always, Must
Translation Rule: The idea immediately following the logical indicator is the necessary condition
omg 5/5 I can't believe it.
How do we determine which part of the statement is X or Y if:
X --> Y
For example, why is it :
microscopic organism → capable of feeling pain
and NOT
capable of feeling pain --> microscopic organism
He said WHENEVER was in Group 1. I could not find it among the indicator words in GROUP 1. What am I missing?
I struggled with this section. One thing that helps to think about for which part is sufficient and which necessary is to give counterexamples that are the negation of each clause.
For example, on question 2: "Businesses do the environmentally “right” thing only if doing so makes good business sense." We have 2 clauses:
Do ... right thing ...
Makes good business sense ...
To give a negation example, let's ask "What if doing so makes only ok business sense? Can businesses do the environmentally right thing then?" No, it is explicitly stated that businesses do the right thing *only* when doing so makes "good" business sense. There is a restriction.
On the other hand, let's ask "If businesses do an environmentally 'neutral' thing (or a 'wrong' thing), does doing so have to mean that action does not make good business sense?" No, we're not restricted given the information we have. The action could be environmentally neutral and make a lot of good business sense.
So we know that the clause "Good business sense..." is the necessary part (which doesn't rely on the action being environmentally "right").
Realllllly struggled with any of variation of "only" statements until I realized that:
“The only” → sufficient
“Only / only if / only when” → necessary
“The only” singles out a group and says that all of them must satisfy some property. That’s the same pattern as “all” or “every.”
Examples:
The only students invited are seniors.
Translation: If you're invited, you're invited, you're a senior
Symbolize: Invited → Senior
The only animals in the room are cats.
Translation: Every animal in the room is a cat.
Symbolize: In room → Cat
The only oral myths that survived are the ones written down.
Translation: All the oral myths that survived were written down.
Symbolize: Survived → Written down
This concept really really frustrated me for a long time and made me feel like I was stupid!! I hope this can help anyone else going through something similar <3
5/5 this time :)
4/5 :)
For question 4 I saw the word some as one of the main concepts and linked the other part together. I keep doing that...
Question 5 is confusing for me. Why plant material mixed into garden soil comes first, not the bacteria?
Question 3 is confusing for me as well. I wanted to ask the group a question. How would I diagram the nest in the summit of the Andes and the highest birds of prey nest?
Is the nest the superset or the subset?
So if the key word is in the beginning the x —-> y is backwards……??..? I’m lost on #3 why wouldn’t it be if you’re the highest flying bird of prey you nest in the summits of Andes?
Why is it if you nest in the summits of the Andes you are the highest flying birds of prey? Is it a general rule if the keyword (only) is in the beginning it is going to be backwards ? Pls guide Ty
This Skill Builder video was so much better than the last one. You are now reading out the contrapositive in English, and that helps us relate it back to the test. After all, the test is all in English, as you have said many times previously.
Thank you! Hopefully all the videos moving forward will continue this trend of bring Lawgic back to English, so that we are clear how we should interpret and use this to our benefit.
*TIP* (Cause I’m not intuitive at all). I try to think of it in terms of language parameters: All + subject + verb + object. The subject is exhaustive and therefore, is the sufficient clause encased by the object. Otherwise. Only + subject + verb + object. The subject is limited in scope. Just because only one group does something, it leaves the possibility that not all in that group do it. Therefore the second clause, is needed to create the conditional parameters. I would start with the subject (or clause being modified by the conditional indicator words). And then consider whether that subject/claim is exhaustive or limited. Hope this helps? This how I think it out :)
I am genuinely so confused on how to know which side of the arrow the conditions go on. Full transparency I skipped much of the "foundations" curriculum but I had to come back to this part because I am so stuck when dealing with the logical reasoning questions. Please #help
I am so confused
Can someone give me an example of the type of question that will be asked or these types of questions? If im given a conditional question on the real exam, how will the question be asked? IM understanding the steps to take to inure out the conditions but how will the questions be asked? Thank you!
I dont know if this is helpful to anyone else but something that helps conditional logic make more intuitive sense to me is comparing the contrapositive i get from the initial statement. What I'm looking for is if I have confused the subset for the superset. It is something that has worked for me but Idk if its really helpful for anyone else or when it comes to more confusing sentences.
I am not sure how to regard the word only. In the previous exercise. it was said that it's a group 1 indicator but here it's treated as a necessary condition indicator. Why is that?
Question 1 has a sufficient and necessary indicator word. This skill builder indicates this is for group 2 indicators meanwhile it uses the sufficient indicator word to translate the statement.
For me, depending on the statement, I find it easier not to think about which indicator word is being used, but instead I create the contrapositive statement and see if that makes sense.
For example, #3: lets say you flip the sufficient and necessary conditions on accident - highest flying bird → nests in the Andes, contrapositive being if does not nest in the andes → not the highest flying bird - I know this is incorrect because it assumes the highest flying bird ONLY nest in the Andes, which is not necessarily true based off the context given, so more logically it is nest in andes→highest flying bird
I suggest keeping the indicator words in the back of your mind, but not as the first thing you turn to when breaking down conditional arguments. These practice examples (especially number here and in the last one) show that many words can be used immediately before a sufficient condition, even if they are on the necessary condition indicator list. Especially the word only.
It helps me to manipulate the sentence until the logic being deployed is clear to the way my brain works. Often that means drawing a visual diagram first, either in my mind or on the page. That can also mean substituting in other words -- for "only", often "all" is a good one to substitute.
For number three here, I reworded the sentence in my brain to: "All birds who nest in the summits of the Andes are the highest flying birds of prey." Written this way, "birds who nest in the summits of the Andes" is clearly the SUFFICIENT condition to "are the highest flying birds of prey". But this also just makes sense if you think about the sentence visually. "Highest flying birds of pray" should be a larger bubble -- there are probably plenty that don't nest up high. "Nest in the summits of the Andes" should be a smaller bubble, because it's more specific.
Messing around with the language, and thinking of the sentence visually, helps to manipulate the logic so that it makes most sense to you. Be careful about relying too heavily on indicator words.
For the ones that get flipped (not listed in their sentence order), what is the simple way for me to know when to flip it around and not just list left to right? IE numbers 3 and 5