@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
@TrinityLynn Yeah for sure, so cannot is a group 4 conditional indicator so it most likely will not appear in a statement. Let's use the example: "I will go to the park unless it rains" . Therefore my statement translated into lawgic would be.
/Going to the park --> Rains contrapositive /rains ---> going to the park. Translated back: If it rains, then I'm not going to the park. If it doesn't rain, then I'm going to the park. I hope this helps!
Why is it okay for the order of the argument to be flipped from A-->B to B-->A (at minute 4)? I thought that wasn't allowed unless we're taking the contrapositive.
Guys I gotchu. I figured it out. Basically every time we flip the contrapositive it worked for both claims before but now for Group 3, once you flip them, one of the flips won't be logical. When you get your translated sentences figure out which one makes sense.
"Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates"
We did the whole translation and now we have...
"If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur"
"If the heat wave abates, then blackouts will not occur"
Its basically an extra step of thinking which one makes the more sense. Like literally just think.... blackouts might still happen if a heat wave goes down. There are so many situations for a blackout, a measly heat wave going away doesn't guarantee that blackouts will not occur. For the others both translations worked and for this one only one of the translations works. I THINK.
(You can downvote me if I'm wrong I won't take it personally lol)
"John won't eat buffalo chicken cheese fries unless there's a mountain of guacamole on top"
Two Ideas: John won't eat his buffalo chicken cheese fries + there's a mountain of guacamole on top
Make first idea JWF (John won't fries)
Second idea MG (mountain guacamole)
Make one of them a negation (doesn't matter which) so then:
/MG > JWF
or
MG > /JWF
back to English:
If there is no mountain of guacamole on top, John won't eat his buffalo chicken cheese fries.
If there is mountain of guacamole on top, John will eat his buffalo chicken cheese fries.
Now think, which one matches the first statement. Remember our original sentence was "John won't eat buffalo chicken cheese fries unless there's a mountain of guacamole on top". Now which left side is more sufficient for the right side?
Winner: The second one. It's the exact same sentence! Read both aloud its pretty noticeable. The first one is not correct because it doesn't match the claim, it says something else. Plus- what if John was in a fries-eating contest worth a million dollars and all he had to do was eat his favorite fries without guacamole? Highly unlikely but it leaves the possibility where he WOULD eat fries without guacamole. Now I'm hungry for fries
@SohaS I'm having a hard time understanding your example. Isn't the guac necessary for him to eat his fries but not sufficient? Your statement is saying that if his fries do not have guac he will not eat them. But that doesn't mean that if they DO have guac he WILL eat them (What if he's allergic to another ingredient, or it looks spoiled, etc.)
It is easy enough to understand that if the heat wave doesn't lessen, then blackouts will occur. What I cannot understand is if blackouts don't occur, then the heat wave lessens. Why is the heat wave lessening dependent on blackouts not occurring?
Example #1: “Blackouts will occur unless the heat waves abates.”
Translation Step 1: Identify the conditional indicator: The word “unless” is our identifiable conditional indicator.
Step 2: Identify the two main concepts (or groups, categories, events, or ideas): Blackouts will occur(first concept) and the other unless the heat waves abate (second concept).
Step 3: Assign Symbols to the main concepts: /BO → HWA → IF THE HEAT WAVE DOESN'T ABATE --> BLACK OUT OCCURS.
Step 4: Apply the translation rule LAWGIC: /BO → HWA
CONTRAPOSITIVE: /(HWA) → BO
Translating back to english: “If the heat wave doesn’t 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
@HenryJohnson In practice we don't always need to write out the contrapositive. The contrapositive is simply something that is true based on a conditional, whether we write it out or not. So we should always be prepared to recognize a contrapositive and rephrase conditionals into their contrapositives if that makes something easier to understand. So consider writing out the contrapositive right now as simply practice for what should eventually just be something you understand in your mind.
@sapalmeri Which two statements are you referring to? I ask because some of the statements discussed do in fact mean the same thing (they're contrapositives of each other). But another pair of statements doesn't mean the same thing and in fact are commonly confused as meaning the same thing.
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.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
166 comments
I feel like it doesn't confuse sufficiency for necessity, more you forgot that unless means to negate.
idk if that's right lmk lol!
I would also sum it up by saying, only focus on the sole claim presented. Do not extrapolate meaning that is not explicitly stated.
I'm surprised you didn't use "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better."
What happens when both clauses are negative (or we want to put in the sufficient part the negative clause)? For example
"Blackouts won't occur unless the heat wave doesn't abates."
Easy: it works like math. Negative + Negative = Positive, Positive + Negative = Negative.
Blackouts occur - Heat wave doesn't abate
Heat wave abates - Blackouts won't occur
Wow, you simplified this diagramming concept so easily for me! I was struggling with this for a while, thank you so much!!!!
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
can someone explain using a different indicator
for example
"I cannot have fun without wine"
I tried to create my own statement and my brain is doing crazy things
@TrinityLynn Yeah for sure, so cannot is a group 4 conditional indicator so it most likely will not appear in a statement. Let's use the example: "I will go to the park unless it rains" . Therefore my statement translated into lawgic would be.
/Going to the park --> Rains contrapositive /rains ---> going to the park. Translated back: If it rains, then I'm not going to the park. If it doesn't rain, then I'm going to the park. I hope this helps!
Why is it okay for the order of the argument to be flipped from A-->B to B-->A (at minute 4)? I thought that wasn't allowed unless we're taking the contrapositive.
@EliBelly Are you referring to "/(heat wave abate) --> blackouts" and "/blackouts --> heat wave abate"? That looks like the contrapositive to me.
Guys I gotchu. I figured it out. Basically every time we flip the contrapositive it worked for both claims before but now for Group 3, once you flip them, one of the flips won't be logical. When you get your translated sentences figure out which one makes sense.
"Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates"
We did the whole translation and now we have...
"If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur"
"If the heat wave abates, then blackouts will not occur"
Its basically an extra step of thinking which one makes the more sense. Like literally just think.... blackouts might still happen if a heat wave goes down. There are so many situations for a blackout, a measly heat wave going away doesn't guarantee that blackouts will not occur. For the others both translations worked and for this one only one of the translations works. I THINK.
(You can downvote me if I'm wrong I won't take it personally lol)
@SohaS Lemme try an example:
"John won't eat buffalo chicken cheese fries unless there's a mountain of guacamole on top"
Two Ideas: John won't eat his buffalo chicken cheese fries + there's a mountain of guacamole on top
Make first idea JWF (John won't fries)
Second idea MG (mountain guacamole)
Make one of them a negation (doesn't matter which) so then:
/MG > JWF
or
MG > /JWF
back to English:
If there is no mountain of guacamole on top, John won't eat his buffalo chicken cheese fries.
If there is mountain of guacamole on top, John will eat his buffalo chicken cheese fries.
Now think, which one matches the first statement. Remember our original sentence was "John won't eat buffalo chicken cheese fries unless there's a mountain of guacamole on top". Now which left side is more sufficient for the right side?
Winner: The second one. It's the exact same sentence! Read both aloud its pretty noticeable. The first one is not correct because it doesn't match the claim, it says something else. Plus- what if John was in a fries-eating contest worth a million dollars and all he had to do was eat his favorite fries without guacamole? Highly unlikely but it leaves the possibility where he WOULD eat fries without guacamole. Now I'm hungry for fries
@SohaS I'm having a hard time understanding your example. Isn't the guac necessary for him to eat his fries but not sufficient? Your statement is saying that if his fries do not have guac he will not eat them. But that doesn't mean that if they DO have guac he WILL eat them (What if he's allergic to another ingredient, or it looks spoiled, etc.)
@SohaS "Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates"
This does mean "If the heat wave does NOT abate --> blackouts will occur"
But the contrapositive still works:
"If blackouts do NOT occur --> then the heave wave DID abate"
This does not mean, however, that if the heat wave abates, blackouts won't occur. They can still occur for other reasons, even if the heat wave stops.
It is easy enough to understand that if the heat wave doesn't lessen, then blackouts will occur. What I cannot understand is if blackouts don't occur, then the heat wave lessens. Why is the heat wave lessening dependent on blackouts not occurring?
does it mean that if blackouts don't occur, it's BECAUSE the heat wave lessened?
I wish they would provide examples of how the LSAT tests this Negate sufficient..
Example #1: “Blackouts will occur unless the heat waves abates.”
Translation Step 1: Identify the conditional indicator: The word “unless” is our identifiable conditional indicator.
Step 2: Identify the two main concepts (or groups, categories, events, or ideas): Blackouts will occur(first concept) and the other unless the heat waves abate (second concept).
Step 3: Assign Symbols to the main concepts: /BO → HWA → IF THE HEAT WAVE DOESN'T ABATE --> BLACK OUT OCCURS.
Step 4: Apply the translation rule LAWGIC: /BO → HWA
CONTRAPOSITIVE: /(HWA) → BO
Translating back to english: “If the heat wave doesn’t abate, then blackouts will occur.”
oh dear my brain cannot wrap around this
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
I'm confused as to why we bother with the contrapositive if it doesn't matter which clause we choose and arrive at the same meaning either way
@HenryJohnson In practice we don't always need to write out the contrapositive. The contrapositive is simply something that is true based on a conditional, whether we write it out or not. So we should always be prepared to recognize a contrapositive and rephrase conditionals into their contrapositives if that makes something easier to understand. So consider writing out the contrapositive right now as simply practice for what should eventually just be something you understand in your mind.
@Kevin_Lin That makes sense; thank you!
so either clause has the ability to become the sufficient condition?
@zbr Yes (as long as you negate that part and make it sufficient).
"Not A unless B"
You can read that as
/B --> /A
or
A --> B
In the first, /B is sufficient for /A. In the second, A is sufficient for B.
God help me
this one was fun
i still don't entirely understand how they are different.
@sapalmeri Which two statements are you referring to? I ask because some of the statements discussed do in fact mean the same thing (they're contrapositives of each other). But another pair of statements doesn't mean the same thing and in fact are commonly confused as meaning the same thing.
@Kevin_Lin My apologies, I was referring to:
If the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur.
If blackouts don't occur, then the heat wave abates.
@sapalmeri Those mean the same thing!
/A --> B
/B --> A
are contrapositives of each other.
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
@CYS1123 "If you arrive early, you will get a good seat."
Does that imply that if you don't arrive early, you won't get a good seat?
(No!)
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?
@VanillaCat yes
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.