While it may not have been relevant for this skill builder, does the english translation of say a premise with a group two indicator require an indicator of the same group? Does it matter? Here's an example:
#5: Cruise ships make unscheduled stops only when the necessities of safety demand that such course of action is prudent.
Unsceduled Stops (US) --> Necessities of Safety Demand (NSD)
/NSD --> /US
Since "only when" was the group two indicator, should I aim to use the same or another group two indicator when writing my translation into English from Lawgic? Does it matter?
Group 1: has the indicators (if, When, where, all, every, any, the only) it means that the sufficient indicator goes to the left side of the arrow.
Group 2: has the sets of indicators (only, Only if, only when, only where, always, must), meaning the necessary condition goes on the right side of the arrow.
am I making any sense? or do I need to re watch everything lol
how do you decide which goes "first" in the lawgic sequence? for question three for example, i presumed it would be (formed on basis of consequences) -> valid moral judgment... i'm just confused on how to understand the order of the logical sequence
I'm not a fan of treating sentences that are clearly about inductive logic as if they are conditionals. Question 1 summarizes data. It does not attempt to make a universal claim. Translating it to "Hunting Permited -> Deer Population has not increased" is an error, in my view. I would expect it's part of a larger passage that uses that data point to make an argument about causality, which then could be analyzed on its strength.
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.
131 comments
It clicked for me from the Mario reference that the arrow cannot go the opposite way if the argument is to be vaild
Here is what the answer gives
can fly while wearing raccoon suit → Italian plumber
/(Italian plumbers) → /(fly while wearing raccoon suit)
HOWEVER IT IS INVAILD to conclude that
Italian plumber → can fly while wearing raccoon suit
If Italian plumber, then can fly while wearing raccoon suit
Which is not true, because only Luigi and Mario can fly while wearing raccoon suits
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
Question 4's Mario reference completely went over my head
While it may not have been relevant for this skill builder, does the english translation of say a premise with a group two indicator require an indicator of the same group? Does it matter? Here's an example:
#5: Cruise ships make unscheduled stops only when the necessities of safety demand that such course of action is prudent.
Unsceduled Stops (US) --> Necessities of Safety Demand (NSD)
/NSD --> /US
Since "only when" was the group two indicator, should I aim to use the same or another group two indicator when writing my translation into English from Lawgic? Does it matter?
#2 is confusing me, because of the word impacts. My thinking was in order for the society to be endangered, impacts from space must happen.
4/5 I got all the rest right but number 1. The two beginning commas triped me up
#4
I got confused because I misunderstood the placement of “only.” It’s “ONLY plumbers can fly while…” not “Plumbers can ONLY fly while…” OMGGGG
can someone explain to me why in group 4 italian plumbers goes after the arrow ?
3/5 numbers 4 and 5 tripped me up but keeping it pushing!
Wow, 5 tripped me up. So annoying
I keep writing the conditions backwards on questions like #4 & #5. Everything else made sense to me. Any advice?
just to confirm
Group 1: has the indicators (if, When, where, all, every, any, the only) it means that the sufficient indicator goes to the left side of the arrow.
Group 2: has the sets of indicators (only, Only if, only when, only where, always, must), meaning the necessary condition goes on the right side of the arrow.
am I making any sense? or do I need to re watch everything lol
#1 and #4 got me
4/5, #2 tripped me up
i was trying to say something like:
planetary society will be endangered -> impacts from space
but i kinda missed that the question was trying to make a distinction between planetary society and other forms of society.
now i recognize what contrapositive really means.....
5/5 but number four really tripped me out.
3/5
Okay officially going back to write down which words are group 1 and which are group 2
Finally a proper 5/5
how do you decide which goes "first" in the lawgic sequence? for question three for example, i presumed it would be (formed on basis of consequences) -> valid moral judgment... i'm just confused on how to understand the order of the logical sequence
I'm not a fan of treating sentences that are clearly about inductive logic as if they are conditionals. Question 1 summarizes data. It does not attempt to make a universal claim. Translating it to "Hunting Permited -> Deer Population has not increased" is an error, in my view. I would expect it's part of a larger passage that uses that data point to make an argument about causality, which then could be analyzed on its strength.
I wonder if it might be easier to start with the contrapositive with necessary condition indicators.
growing so much in these sections-- finally, conditional logics were the death of me.
To confirm, group 1 sufficient indicators go to the left of the arrow, but group 2 necessary conditions go to the right of the arrow?
5/5!!