For anyone studying and who is stressed about this concept, I am reviewing old concepts from later lessons to prepare for my test. You must find some level of understanding if this explanation does not work (check Reddit! Great examples, and helpful ADHD LSAT tips lol). But sometimes taking a step back taking a break letting these concepts marinate in your brain for a day or two, then coming back is the best thing you can do!!! Breaks are just as beneficial as studying, find the balance of both that works for you. TRYING TO STUDY 4+ HOURS A DAY IF YOU HAVE A JOB WILL BURN YOU OUT. Take it from a recovering burnout victim. Please be kind to yourself during this process, you deserve it!!!!
@M.Milk123 Thank you for this! Lately I've notice I have started to take more breaks while studying but its because I'm burning myself out especially with full time work. It feels like I barely have time for myself or barely enough time to rest
If you're feeling frustrated by this and the last couple of lessons, don't worry. This stuff is HARD! I have a background in symbolic/formal logic and grammar and working through these translations is still like pulling teeth. I think the best recommendation is to get as many reps in as possible. Go through the Skill Builders earnestly, writing out your answers before checking your work.
If you're still not getting it, supplement your learning by going to Reddit. There's tons of extra examples and tips on there.
@siglallie334 Ty! This made it so simple, my only question is why is it headlined "pick either idea..negate it..then make that idea sufficient" The headline confused me making me believe it was whichever idea could be negated and made sufficient
I think this lesson is pretty bad because you fail to dive deeper into the difference between common understanding of that sentence and what your understanding needs to be on the test. In conversation, blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates would imply that the heat wave abating would mean no blackout will occur, same as me saying I will slap you unless you apologize. In regular language, everyone would read that and understand that them apologizing would mean they wouldn't get slapped. But on the LSAT and in a logic class, you could still get slapped after apologizing. I now understand it, but this just makes no intuitive sense and an acknowledgement of that would've helped since I had to go to external sources for 20 minutes to try and find an answer.
what you're forgetting is, that you can slap someone for other reasons besides not apologizing. Someone apologizing to you would guarantee that you won't slap them. However, if you slap someone doesn't mean per se that they did not apologize. You could've slapped someone because you just hate the way their voice sounds (extreme example), not because they did not apologize.
Also colloquial interpretations of the English language should be left at the door when you "enter" the LSAT world. People constantly make false equations based on such misconceptions as a heatwave abiding guaranteeing no blackout. Because a blackout can still occur due to human error or because a powerline was cut. There is multiple possibilities which you exclude by saying "if the heatwave abides then there will be no black out". However, what we do know, if the heatwave doesn't abide there will be a blackout guaranteed.
Oh I just talked to an AI about it. You could ask it for examples or questions about it to help your understanding. That helped me, and now I just always try to think about "unless" in the correct lsat way when I'm thinking in day to day life in order to gain that muscle memory.
To put this in really simple layman's terms, you have to think about whether one thing can still happen without the other thing. So in this case, blackouts can still occur even without a heat wave. That is why the statement "if the heatwave abates, then blackouts will not occur" is not the correct choice. Blackouts can still very much happen without a heat wave, think man caused fire damaging the electrical grid, equipment failing, a tree falling on a power line, etc.
This idea was definitely a little confusing to get---but another method of thinking about this that is helpful for me is treating the "A unless/or/until/without B" statement as an "either A or B" statement. For example, "Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates" can be rephrased as "Either blackouts occur, or the heat wave abates." That way, it feels more intuitive to presume that:
If not A, then B. (If blackouts don't occur, then the heat wave abates)
If not B, then A. (If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur)
This is just what has helped me so far--if there's something wrong with this reasoning, let me know!
@ShauneJa'CoreyPayne I was waiting to respond until I made another one, I made a set for quantifiers. I also made a folder that I will most likely add more sets to as I go. I'm taking my time to fully digest what I'm learning so it's taking longer but I want to make more as soon as I get through chunks of material lol here's the folder! https://quizlet.com/user/ehoffmanwallace/folders/lsat-7sage-flashcards
I put this into chat GPT since I was confused with the blackout example, and it really helped me understand!
To negate a sufficient condition, you need to focus on what it means for the sufficient condition to not hold.
Example Breakdown:
Original Statement: "Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates."
1. Rephrased Statement: "If the heat wave does not abate, then blackouts will occur."
- Here, the sufficient condition is "the heat wave abates" (which leads to the outcome of not having blackouts).
Negation Process:
To negate the sufficient condition, you can do the following:
1. Identify the Sufficient Condition: In this case, it’s "the heat wave abates."
2. Negate the Sufficient Condition: The negation of "the heat wave abates" is "the heat wave does not abate."
3. Original Implication:
- If the heat wave abates (sufficient condition), then blackouts will not occur.
4. Negated Implication:
- If the heat wave does not abate (negation of sufficient condition), the implication about blackouts must be re-evaluated.
Complete Negation:
In the context of the original statement, the negation of the entire statement would be that the heat wave does not abate and blackouts do not occur. However, since we're focused on negating the sufficient condition specifically, we can say:
- Negation of the Sufficient Condition: "The heat wave does not abate" means that we cannot conclude that blackouts will occur or not.
### Conclusion:
So, when you negate the sufficient condition (in this case, "the heat wave abates"), you focus on its opposite: "the heat wave does not abate." This leads to a situation where the outcome (blackouts occurring) cannot be definitively stated.
In summary, when dealing with sufficient conditions on the LSAT, remember to rephrase and then identify how the negation affects the logical outcome. This approach will help you navigate similar questions effectively!
i completely got this and then you lost me and then i got it again. that was a wild ride but i think i got it? yes i'm pretty positive i understand lol
i could be totally off base, but unless = "if not" was mentioned earlier right? so "blackouts will occur if not the heat wave abates" (disgusting but helpful to see) is the actual statement here. The sentence then becomes "If the heat wave does not abate, then blackouts will occur"
Just have to stress the importance of this, I have come back to this lesson multiple times. Once you get to actual questions with unless it can be so confusing, DO NOT FORGET THIS
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.
215 comments
For anyone studying and who is stressed about this concept, I am reviewing old concepts from later lessons to prepare for my test. You must find some level of understanding if this explanation does not work (check Reddit! Great examples, and helpful ADHD LSAT tips lol). But sometimes taking a step back taking a break letting these concepts marinate in your brain for a day or two, then coming back is the best thing you can do!!! Breaks are just as beneficial as studying, find the balance of both that works for you. TRYING TO STUDY 4+ HOURS A DAY IF YOU HAVE A JOB WILL BURN YOU OUT. Take it from a recovering burnout victim. Please be kind to yourself during this process, you deserve it!!!!
@M.Milk123 Thank you for this! Lately I've notice I have started to take more breaks while studying but its because I'm burning myself out especially with full time work. It feels like I barely have time for myself or barely enough time to rest
im cooked -_-
I like to think about it as
you cannot drive unless you are at least 16
if you are not at least 16, then you cannot drive
/>16→/D
(fair enough)
or
if you can drive, then you are at least 16
D→ >16
(but you also probably have a license)
this is not the same as
if you cannot drive, then you are not at least 16
/D→/>16
(you could just not have your license)
or
If you are at least 16, then you can drive
>16→D
(you still need to get a license)
hopefully this makes sense and is correct lol
God help me
This is the moment that I understand what people mean when they say this is like learning a new language.
If you're feeling frustrated by this and the last couple of lessons, don't worry. This stuff is HARD! I have a background in symbolic/formal logic and grammar and working through these translations is still like pulling teeth. I think the best recommendation is to get as many reps in as possible. Go through the Skill Builders earnestly, writing out your answers before checking your work.
If you're still not getting it, supplement your learning by going to Reddit. There's tons of extra examples and tips on there.
Thank you for this.
i am so lost here
Group 1 (if, when, all, any, etc.) — what comes after is the sufficient condition.
Group 2 (only if, must, always, etc.) — what comes after is the necessary condition.
Group 3 (unless, until, without, or) — what comes after is negated, then becomes the sufficient condition.
Amen !
@siglallie334 Ty! This made it so simple, my only question is why is it headlined "pick either idea..negate it..then make that idea sufficient" The headline confused me making me believe it was whichever idea could be negated and made sufficient
oh dear my brain cannot wrap around this
Replace the "unless/ without/ until/ except" with "if not"
ORIGINAL
Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates.
Replace
Blackouts will occur "if not" the heat wave abates.
Readjust the grammar
Blackouts will occur if the heat wave doesn't abate.
Now, this form is similar to Group 1
/HWA → BO
Contrapositive:
/BO → HWA
man this is just giving me mind mush bro
I think this lesson is pretty bad because you fail to dive deeper into the difference between common understanding of that sentence and what your understanding needs to be on the test. In conversation, blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates would imply that the heat wave abating would mean no blackout will occur, same as me saying I will slap you unless you apologize. In regular language, everyone would read that and understand that them apologizing would mean they wouldn't get slapped. But on the LSAT and in a logic class, you could still get slapped after apologizing. I now understand it, but this just makes no intuitive sense and an acknowledgement of that would've helped since I had to go to external sources for 20 minutes to try and find an answer.
What was your external resource? I'm still having trouble, and am worried about making the oldest mistake in the book!
apologize -> /slapped
slapped -> /apologize
what you're forgetting is, that you can slap someone for other reasons besides not apologizing. Someone apologizing to you would guarantee that you won't slap them. However, if you slap someone doesn't mean per se that they did not apologize. You could've slapped someone because you just hate the way their voice sounds (extreme example), not because they did not apologize.
Also colloquial interpretations of the English language should be left at the door when you "enter" the LSAT world. People constantly make false equations based on such misconceptions as a heatwave abiding guaranteeing no blackout. Because a blackout can still occur due to human error or because a powerline was cut. There is multiple possibilities which you exclude by saying "if the heatwave abides then there will be no black out". However, what we do know, if the heatwave doesn't abide there will be a blackout guaranteed.
Oh I just talked to an AI about it. You could ask it for examples or questions about it to help your understanding. That helped me, and now I just always try to think about "unless" in the correct lsat way when I'm thinking in day to day life in order to gain that muscle memory.
I would also sum it up by saying, only focus on the sole claim presented. Do not extrapolate meaning that is not explicitly stated.
To put this in really simple layman's terms, you have to think about whether one thing can still happen without the other thing. So in this case, blackouts can still occur even without a heat wave. That is why the statement "if the heatwave abates, then blackouts will not occur" is not the correct choice. Blackouts can still very much happen without a heat wave, think man caused fire damaging the electrical grid, equipment failing, a tree falling on a power line, etc.
@Marleyjacob67 Perfect way of putting it!
i get this but i also dont? like lol
This idea was definitely a little confusing to get---but another method of thinking about this that is helpful for me is treating the "A unless/or/until/without B" statement as an "either A or B" statement. For example, "Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates" can be rephrased as "Either blackouts occur, or the heat wave abates." That way, it feels more intuitive to presume that:
If not A, then B. (If blackouts don't occur, then the heat wave abates)
If not B, then A. (If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur)
This is just what has helped me so far--if there's something wrong with this reasoning, let me know!
thank you!
GOD BLESS ITS STARTING TO MAKE SENSE
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 Do you have anymore Quizlets?
@ShauneJa'CoreyPayne I was waiting to respond until I made another one, I made a set for quantifiers. I also made a folder that I will most likely add more sets to as I go. I'm taking my time to fully digest what I'm learning so it's taking longer but I want to make more as soon as I get through chunks of material lol here's the folder! https://quizlet.com/user/ehoffmanwallace/folders/lsat-7sage-flashcards
I wish they would provide examples of how the LSAT tests this Negate sufficient..
I put this into chat GPT since I was confused with the blackout example, and it really helped me understand!
To negate a sufficient condition, you need to focus on what it means for the sufficient condition to not hold.
Example Breakdown:
Original Statement: "Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates."
1. Rephrased Statement: "If the heat wave does not abate, then blackouts will occur."
- Here, the sufficient condition is "the heat wave abates" (which leads to the outcome of not having blackouts).
Negation Process:
To negate the sufficient condition, you can do the following:
1. Identify the Sufficient Condition: In this case, it’s "the heat wave abates."
2. Negate the Sufficient Condition: The negation of "the heat wave abates" is "the heat wave does not abate."
3. Original Implication:
- If the heat wave abates (sufficient condition), then blackouts will not occur.
4. Negated Implication:
- If the heat wave does not abate (negation of sufficient condition), the implication about blackouts must be re-evaluated.
Complete Negation:
In the context of the original statement, the negation of the entire statement would be that the heat wave does not abate and blackouts do not occur. However, since we're focused on negating the sufficient condition specifically, we can say:
- Negation of the Sufficient Condition: "The heat wave does not abate" means that we cannot conclude that blackouts will occur or not.
### Conclusion:
So, when you negate the sufficient condition (in this case, "the heat wave abates"), you focus on its opposite: "the heat wave does not abate." This leads to a situation where the outcome (blackouts occurring) cannot be definitively stated.
In summary, when dealing with sufficient conditions on the LSAT, remember to rephrase and then identify how the negation affects the logical outcome. This approach will help you navigate similar questions effectively!
excellent usernmae
was abt to say the same
i completely got this and then you lost me and then i got it again. that was a wild ride but i think i got it? yes i'm pretty positive i understand lol
@NovaBates lmao fr
This is the sweetets lesson I have found on this site ever. The fact that I can pick any part of the clause and make the SC, on volition.
I cannot convey how happy this is making me RN.
i could be totally off base, but unless = "if not" was mentioned earlier right? so "blackouts will occur if not the heat wave abates" (disgusting but helpful to see) is the actual statement here. The sentence then becomes "If the heat wave does not abate, then blackouts will occur"
@CScheresky Yes! Wish they pulled this earlier rule into this lesson as well instead of a new rule
Just have to stress the importance of this, I have come back to this lesson multiple times. Once you get to actual questions with unless it can be so confusing, DO NOT FORGET THIS
@JackClemons85 yep, here I am reviewing this lol
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.
You could also substitute it with an only if, and simply negate the premise that preceded "unless"
e.g
You cannot run unless you are fit
You can run only if you are fit
If you can run, then you are fit
R -> F
/F -> /R