Am I understanding correctly that the answer to the question "Does that statement mean 'If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur" or does it mean "If the heat wave abates, then blackouts will not occur?'" is that the statement means both?
This is the first example where my brain felt like it was getting stretched. The other groups and example made sense, but now this one is making me aware of how the logic can be very different with the use of just one word.
I'm confused about the time tenses in these translations back into English. Shouldn't the /BO -> /HWA translation be "If blackouts don't occur, then the heat waves have abated" rather than "then the heat wave abates"? Not sure if this is too extraneous, but I am a bit confused.
if this helps, the way I am thinking about this which one is being limited; The NECESSARY condition is always the one that limits and The SUFFICIENT condition is the thing being limited.
All we need to know is a basic subject or a symbol for it, and whether that concept starts out as a positive or negative. My example starts out with "Not" so if we choose this to negate and place in front then the subject would just be "rain" as opposed to if "cloudy" was chosen and it would be negated to not cloudy.
When you have a double negative happening it cancels out the negatives.
As an example you can think of two little siblings if Kid A is in trouble and says they didn't get in the cookie jar and Kid B tells the parent that they didn't "not not" get in the cookie jar in a snotty tone.
Kid B is saying they got into the cookie jar just using a double negative and being a pain. They could have totally thrown Kid A under the bus but they didn't, instead they chose to indirectly say what happened while burying it under extra fluff of double negations. In its own way the LSAT is doing the same by choosing the more convoluted manner of saying each contrapositive.
If the stimulus is hard then you can fall back onto the direct translation of the logical indicator to get the correct answer. Even if the information does not make immediate sense when reading it. The LSAT seems to intentionally try to throw people off by staying things in a way obscures the structure of the argument.
If this says that: Blackouts WILL occur UNLESS the heat wave abates.. Then how does it make sense to say: If the heat wave doesnt abate, then blackouts will occur?
Wouldnt it be: If the heatwave doesnt abate, then blackouts wont occur?
i find it easiest to just read the exception indicators as 'if not' instead of following the rule of choosing one, negating it, and making it sufficient
SO COnFUsing. I just think of it like. If theres two options for one thing, thats the necessary immediately off the bat. THe sufficient cant have more than one outcome. :)
1
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!
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.
133 comments
i still don't entirely understand how they are different.
I don't understand how the two conclusions aren't the same.
I understand how "If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur" makes sense.
"If the heat wave abates, then blackouts will not occur." I don't understand how that doesn't make sense.
Can anyone explain? The video explaining is not really helping me
Wow, this one was a little tricky to wrap my head around to be honest!
Am I understanding correctly that the answer to the question "Does that statement mean 'If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur" or does it mean "If the heat wave abates, then blackouts will not occur?'" is that the statement means both?
This is the first example where my brain felt like it was getting stretched. The other groups and example made sense, but now this one is making me aware of how the logic can be very different with the use of just one word.
Are these indicators also underinclusive?
Negate Sufficient Indicators:
or
unless
until
without
Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates.
Pick either idea, then negate that idea (blackouts will occur), then make that the sufficient condition.
/BO -->
The other idea is the necessary condition.
--> HWA
So now:
/BO --> HWA
/(Blackouts will occur) --> (The heat wave abates)
Contrapositive:
/HWA --> BO
/(The heat wave abates) --> (Blackouts will occur)
This means the heat waves DOES NOT abate --> blackout will occur.
I always interpret “unless” as “if not.”
Magic
I'm confused about the time tenses in these translations back into English. Shouldn't the /BO -> /HWA translation be "If blackouts don't occur, then the heat waves have abated" rather than "then the heat wave abates"? Not sure if this is too extraneous, but I am a bit confused.
Instead of using sufficiency but necessity, maybe "only unless" not "unless", would this make both options correct?
this may be one of the single most enlightening lessons on the entire site
It will snow, unless the clouds are blue
Step 1) Unless is the conditional indicator
Step 2) Identify the 2 conditions
Condition 1: It will snow
Condition 2: Unless the clouds are blue
Step 3:
Condition 1: Snow
Condition 2: Blue
Translation rule
Step 1) Select 1 of the ideas
It will snow
Step 2) Negate the idea
It will not snow
/snow
Step 3) Make that the sufficient idea
/snow -> blue
It will not snow, unless the clouds are blue
Step 4) Take the contrapositive
/blue -> Snow
If the clouds are not blue, than it will snow
if this helps, the way I am thinking about this which one is being limited; The NECESSARY condition is always the one that limits and The SUFFICIENT condition is the thing being limited.
when you summarize the negate/sufficient rule, why do you drop the "take the contrapositive" rule #5? it makes it seem like its not required
Example:
It will not rain unless it is cloudy.
In this there are two concepts.
not rain --- group 3 indicator--- cloudy
Translation-rain then cloudy
Contrapositive- not cloudy then not rain
All we need to know is a basic subject or a symbol for it, and whether that concept starts out as a positive or negative. My example starts out with "Not" so if we choose this to negate and place in front then the subject would just be "rain" as opposed to if "cloudy" was chosen and it would be negated to not cloudy.
When you have a double negative happening it cancels out the negatives.
As an example you can think of two little siblings if Kid A is in trouble and says they didn't get in the cookie jar and Kid B tells the parent that they didn't "not not" get in the cookie jar in a snotty tone.
Kid B is saying they got into the cookie jar just using a double negative and being a pain. They could have totally thrown Kid A under the bus but they didn't, instead they chose to indirectly say what happened while burying it under extra fluff of double negations. In its own way the LSAT is doing the same by choosing the more convoluted manner of saying each contrapositive.
If the stimulus is hard then you can fall back onto the direct translation of the logical indicator to get the correct answer. Even if the information does not make immediate sense when reading it. The LSAT seems to intentionally try to throw people off by staying things in a way obscures the structure of the argument.
what types of problems does this apply to. Im learning all these concepts and it doesn't really seem to apply on most of the practice questions
This doesnt make sense to me...
If this says that: Blackouts WILL occur UNLESS the heat wave abates.. Then how does it make sense to say: If the heat wave doesnt abate, then blackouts will occur?
Wouldnt it be: If the heatwave doesnt abate, then blackouts wont occur?
I've found it useful to envision things like these as a double-arrow. Not sure if that's legit logically, but it's worked for me.
finally got it
HELP IM UNDERSTANDING
for some reason, no matter what i do i cannot figure out which is the necessary and which is sufficient.
does anyone have an easy to not mix up sufficient and necessary conditions. i keep mistaking them not matter what i do
i find it easiest to just read the exception indicators as 'if not' instead of following the rule of choosing one, negating it, and making it sufficient
SO COnFUsing. I just think of it like. If theres two options for one thing, thats the necessary immediately off the bat. THe sufficient cant have more than one outcome. :)