@Hnelson88 I was referring to "some people" all the extra words that are often used in the stimulus that are unnecessary and used to confuse people. I've been past this section so now much to contribute
Im having the same struggle here as I had with the last one. for question 1 I put capable of feeling pain -> microscopic organism, /microscopic organism -> /capable of feeling pain.
Is my lawgic flawed?? I am genuinely unsure what is making me flip these around...
I'm generally good at arithmetics so I got 5/5, but when you ask me if I understand what each phrase is saying exactly, I gotta pause for like 5 seconds to digest it... This really makes me worried....
@kazuhiro35 I recommend doing a re-watch of all the conditional logic videos up to this point. Because I felt that way too for a long time until I really drilled the concepts into my brain. When you keep repeating the concepts and explaining to yourself how the concepts work, eventually it becomes intuition. It's a slow learning curve, but you do get there with a lot of practice.
I also recommend sitting with a sentence until you do understand exactly what the sentence is saying. I honestly find it so annoying to have to have to approach it this way, but it's the only way that's getting me results. Do not look at the clock and judge yourself for how slow you may be going. The speed comes way farther down the road.
@ZealousAltruisticMode Thanks man, appreciate it :). I'm slowly getting there but if I really get stuck again I'll definitely do a re-watch of everything. Yea I also agree that ppl shouldn't be ashamed of how much time they're taking when it's still in the learning phase. I was just doing some PT questions, and I made a mistake the first try, but after staring at the explanation video for 10 minutes I got it haha. Taking hours to learn is better than being ashamed of it and giving up!
finally got 5/5!! Glad I caught the context in #4 and didn't focus too much on indicators. I'm trying to make sure locating indicators in secondary to figuring out proper context of indicator words.
Do the sufficient conditions always come first in the
A -> B? I've been treating A as always a sufficient and B always as a necessary, but these exercises are making me think that's wrong. If that is wrong, how do we know what poses as "A"?
@Raisethescore okay, so we have to go back to "The idea immediately following the indicator is the necessary condition" so that determines the placement, I think.
@Raisethescore So I just went against everything I ever learned about studying and just powered through to other sections and it actually started making more sense. It definitely helps to make a cheat sheet of the groups and their indicators and rules to have something to quickly check as you drill tho!
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?
What helped me surprisingly, was taking the contrapositive of the statement before I take the actual translation. For whatever reason, it helped me a lot to do that before working backwards to the actual translation.
So for example, for question 4, instead of immediately reasoning "oh, internally consistent scientific theory → plausible", I said: "Okay, after reading this statement, this means that if I don't have an internally consistent scientific theory, then it wouldn't be plausible. But, if it was an internally consistent scientific theory, then it would be! So that means that internally scientific theory goes first and then plausible goes next":
internally consistent scientific theory → plausible
Also, visually writing out the statement helped me a lot. Especially if I put a member in the subset to help solidify my understanding even more.
I hope this helps a little bit! It took me some time to understand the concept myself.
@jdavlantis I think it's helpful to replace "necessary" with "must be" or "have to be". It just makes it simpler to understand for me personally.
So in the conditional A--> B, A MUST be in B every single time. A is tiny circle in B.
So if we look at the statement, it's saying if you're you're a microscopic organism, you HAVE to be capable of feeling pain.
That's illustrated by :
mircoscopic organism -> capable of feeling pain.
But if you flipped them,
capable of feeling pain --> microscopic organism
it reads if you're capable of feeling pain you MUST be a microscopic organism. But that's not what the sentence is saying.
I think a good way to check your work is also the contrapositive to see if it lines up with what the condition is.
If you're not capable of feeling pain, you CAN'T be a microscopic organism. This is true. It's what the sentence is saying and lines up visually. Being able to feel pain is the big circle for the tiny circle microscopic organism. If you're not in that big circle, you can't be in the little one.
/pain-->/micro
But let's take it the other way around.
If you're not a microscopic organism, you CAN'T feel pain.
/micro-->/pain
That's way too broad, and we can't get that from what the premise is saying. Pain is the big circle. You can be in the big circle but not in the tiny one microscopic organism. But this is saying the opposite, so that can't be the contrapositive. The contrapositive has to line up with what the premise says.
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
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.
140 comments
Gotta remember “only if” means “provided”
the wording on number four was fucking me up, but after eliminating the word salad, it made it easier
@DezerreeSnyder
Where did you see the word ‘salad’?
@Hnelson88 I was referring to "some people" all the extra words that are often used in the stimulus that are unnecessary and used to confuse people. I've been past this section so now much to contribute
Im having the same struggle here as I had with the last one. for question 1 I put capable of feeling pain -> microscopic organism, /microscopic organism -> /capable of feeling pain.
Is my lawgic flawed?? I am genuinely unsure what is making me flip these around...
I'm generally good at arithmetics so I got 5/5, but when you ask me if I understand what each phrase is saying exactly, I gotta pause for like 5 seconds to digest it... This really makes me worried....
@kazuhiro35 That's the test for you, the LSAT takes the long way to say simple things.
@kazuhiro35 I recommend doing a re-watch of all the conditional logic videos up to this point. Because I felt that way too for a long time until I really drilled the concepts into my brain. When you keep repeating the concepts and explaining to yourself how the concepts work, eventually it becomes intuition. It's a slow learning curve, but you do get there with a lot of practice.
I also recommend sitting with a sentence until you do understand exactly what the sentence is saying. I honestly find it so annoying to have to have to approach it this way, but it's the only way that's getting me results. Do not look at the clock and judge yourself for how slow you may be going. The speed comes way farther down the road.
@ZealousAltruisticMode Thanks man, appreciate it :). I'm slowly getting there but if I really get stuck again I'll definitely do a re-watch of everything. Yea I also agree that ppl shouldn't be ashamed of how much time they're taking when it's still in the learning phase. I was just doing some PT questions, and I made a mistake the first try, but after staring at the explanation video for 10 minutes I got it haha. Taking hours to learn is better than being ashamed of it and giving up!
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
@SilasMcIntire of course!
test before this humbled me, finally clicking for me....for now
1/5. Losing my mind
finally got 5/5!! Glad I caught the context in #4 and didn't focus too much on indicators. I'm trying to make sure locating indicators in secondary to figuring out proper context of indicator words.
@DouglasNeumeyer yea I focused on the indicator and that caused me to go against what my internal logic was telling me to do ..
Do the sufficient conditions always come first in the
A -> B? I've been treating A as always a sufficient and B always as a necessary, but these exercises are making me think that's wrong. If that is wrong, how do we know what poses as "A"?
@JessM Yes, also not clear why I sometimes place the concepts on the wrong side. I got #3 wrong in this manner.
@Raisethescore okay, so we have to go back to "The idea immediately following the indicator is the necessary condition" so that determines the placement, I think.
@Raisethescore So I just went against everything I ever learned about studying and just powered through to other sections and it actually started making more sense. It definitely helps to make a cheat sheet of the groups and their indicators and rules to have something to quickly check as you drill tho!
is whenever a sufficient keyword for number 5?
@TaylarGottsegen Yes Group 1 sufficient indicators are:
a - all, any (+ as long as—rare indicator, but still used)
e - every
i - if
o - the only
double u (W) - when/whenever, where
@Ikaarin Thank you!
my first 5/5, i used to pray for times like this
I got N. 4 Wrong
4/5
5/5 We getting there!!!!
I just have to remember what the indicator words are. If I have a list next to me, I always get it right.
5/5
i don't have too much of a problem translating them, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what side goes on either arrow, can someone help
@NicoleSpradlin same, and it usually stems from questions including the word "only." this reddit thread really helped me!! https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/16ckbih/the_only_vs_only/
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?
What helped me surprisingly, was taking the contrapositive of the statement before I take the actual translation. For whatever reason, it helped me a lot to do that before working backwards to the actual translation.
So for example, for question 4, instead of immediately reasoning "oh, internally consistent scientific theory → plausible", I said: "Okay, after reading this statement, this means that if I don't have an internally consistent scientific theory, then it wouldn't be plausible. But, if it was an internally consistent scientific theory, then it would be! So that means that internally scientific theory goes first and then plausible goes next":
internally consistent scientific theory → plausible
Also, visually writing out the statement helped me a lot. Especially if I put a member in the subset to help solidify my understanding even more.
I hope this helps a little bit! It took me some time to understand the concept myself.
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
@lainlvrlauren is this the "equation"
Sufficient ---> Necessary
and then we plug in the concepts on either side of the arrow according to which indicator is used?
@Raisethescore yes!
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
@jdavlantis I think it's helpful to replace "necessary" with "must be" or "have to be". It just makes it simpler to understand for me personally.
So in the conditional A--> B, A MUST be in B every single time. A is tiny circle in B.
So if we look at the statement, it's saying if you're you're a microscopic organism, you HAVE to be capable of feeling pain.
That's illustrated by :
mircoscopic organism -> capable of feeling pain.
But if you flipped them,
capable of feeling pain --> microscopic organism
it reads if you're capable of feeling pain you MUST be a microscopic organism. But that's not what the sentence is saying.
I think a good way to check your work is also the contrapositive to see if it lines up with what the condition is.
If you're not capable of feeling pain, you CAN'T be a microscopic organism. This is true. It's what the sentence is saying and lines up visually. Being able to feel pain is the big circle for the tiny circle microscopic organism. If you're not in that big circle, you can't be in the little one.
/pain-->/micro
But let's take it the other way around.
If you're not a microscopic organism, you CAN'T feel pain.
/micro-->/pain
That's way too broad, and we can't get that from what the premise is saying. Pain is the big circle. You can be in the big circle but not in the tiny one microscopic organism. But this is saying the opposite, so that can't be the contrapositive. The contrapositive has to line up with what the premise says.
He said WHENEVER was in Group 1. I could not find it among the indicator words in GROUP 1. What am I missing?
@ChicagoPeach When and Whenever are synonymous I assume.
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
@cat13 THIS IS SO HELPFUL! THANK YOU!!
5/5 this time :)