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.
111 comments
#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!!
Finally got a 5/5 on this lawgic section, I'm actually surprised since this trips me out a bit
this was good
5/5 again wow
what should I do if I'm still not understanding this?
so just to clarify, neccessary conditions are always on the right side of the arrow?
I've gotten all the exercise questions correct up until #4.
What I did:
Italian Plumbers Fly -> Wearing Racoon Suit
/Wearing Racoon Suit -> /Italian Plumbers Fly
When I'm reviewing the explanation video for #4, I suppose it was me not being specific in reading the sentence properly lol
Number 5 is tripping me up because it works in the inverse as well -- at least the way I've arranged it:
If the necessity of safety has demanded an unscheduled stop ---> then an unscheduled stop will occur.
/if an unscheduled stop does not occur ---> /then the necessity of safety has not demanded that an unscheduled stop occur.
If someone who figured this out could comment. Feel like the video was a bit lacking.
Pay attention to the indicators. Even when you are confused it'll be your life line in determining which part is sufficient and necessary.
3/5 but watched the explanation video and understood where i went wrong
in #3 i was definitely tempted to make "valid" a condition.
moral judgment formed on basis of its consequences --> valid
i didn't fall for that trap but i'm a little worried under test conditions i may make that mistake.
3/5
5/5 -thankful!