I found it easier to just break it into A idea and B idea based off the order of the sentence and then Negate A. I was getting lost in trying to fish out the sufficient or necessary like we do for Group 1 and Group 2, but that's more irrelevant here I think
It seems like even though we can do it either way in translating to logic as you state however it seems like it's easier to consider the Sufficient item the one right after the (unless) indicator.
I can't imagine having to do both lawgic translation and the contrapositive and pray to god on a must be true under logic conditionals that one goes right first to connect items first and not having the need to go back to the drawing board. Int he senses that I have to review the other conditional statements and pray I didn't mess one of those up instead of considering the contrapositive on this.
I understand how to 'convert/translate' these sentences and am getting them correct, but I feel like I'm not really understanding the purpose or deeper learning objectives behind all this. How will this help us on the test, in such a time-limited setting? What is the actual goal here? It'd be helpful if lessons told us explicitly how/when to use this on questions in the LSAT, how it's directly applicable, and maybe incorporated more relevant practice.
@ujustgotlittup these lessons provide tools to be able to tackle difficult LR questions using conditional logic, such as some “must be true” questions. Some people are able to figure them out in their head without all the translating, but for myself and many others translating into lawgic helps so much to find the right answer. It may seem tedious now but there might come a time when you’re on a very difficult questions and translating can help you out immensely.
@misoop For number four, the two ideas being compared are "farmers do not know their income for a given calendar year" and "tax returns are calculated and submitted following April.
So, let's say to simplicity's sake, let's say the first idea is "A" and the second idea is "B".
If we use the Negate, sufficient rule, the rest is easy.
/A --> B (If farmers know their income for a given calendar year, then tax returns are calculated and submitted following April.)
/B --> A (If tax returns ARE NOT calculated and submitted following April, then farmers do not know their income for a given calendar year.)
@LaneyWilliams For "/A --> B (If farmers know their income for a given calendar year, then tax returns are calculated and submitted following April)," when doing the negate rule, did it become "farmers know their income for a given calendar year" because it was previously "farmers do NOT know their income"? In other words, did negating A undo what was previously farmers NOT knowing into farmers knowing? Sorry if this question is confusing!
@YamiMoreno Yes! Because if the negation is that farmers DO know their income, then the reverse is that the DO NOT know their income.
It might help to look at this example by swapping the idea that was originally affirmative.
We know that "until" signals the negate, sufficient rule, so we can say that tax returns are NOT calculated/submitted --> farmers do not know their income. (/B --> A)
Take the contrapositive: farmers do know their income --> tax returns ARE calculated/submitted
(/A --> B)
now compare this to the FIRST response we did. The conditional statements are logically equivalent:
If farmers know their income for a given calendar year, then tax returns are calculated and submitted following April. (/A --> B)
is the logical equivalent to
If tax returns are not calculated and submitted, famers do not know their income. (/B --> A)
I found the last two a bit tricky, but I find identifying the fact of "unless" as the word and knowing that what precedes it is a necessary condition -- then can make the regular sufficient -> necessary claim
"MJbring" is necessary so to get to that we must have PR -> MJbring
Or, mechanically steps otherwise you have identified the necessary claim, negate that claim and swap order with suufficient to form contrapositive; then form the contrapositive of that
Overall, it helps to label FIRST, and then turn it into Lawgic..at first I tried to label as I wrote the formula, and that's how I kept missing the "nots" or "irrationally", etc
All I am doing is translate it from English to Lawgic. It is hard, but I know the actual LSAT stimulus will hit harder. I hope these things are gonna stick with me.
Why "rr" ("governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally") has a negation? For some odd reason I'm not understanding the explanation {cries in spanglish}
This is the first lesson where I feel completely lost… does negating either of the main ideas help find the sufficient claim? I feel like my lawgic translations aren’t helping me identify what the original statement is saying lol
@DeborahJimenez I think its helpful if you follow the translation rule which says to 1. take either of the two claims/ideas. 2. negate it. 3. make that the sufficient condition (meaning the other has to be the necessary condition. and then put into lawgic form.
I also think its helpful if you convert into lawgic for both phrases/ideas having a situation where each idea is the sufficient condition, leaving you with 2 lawgic "sentences". This lets you interpret it however makes the most sense to you.
Do you think it's worth spending time making flashcards for the three groups or just continue on? I'm trying to understand how best to balance study time on these lessons vs doing drills.
@AmandaMorris02 I've done a few PTs and ended up having to come back to this because I didn't have a strong foundation on it. I've used acronyms to help me remember them now.
Group 1: AEIOU (I change the U to W and just imagine 2 Us connected to form a W)
A Any, All
E Every
I If
O The Only
U (W) Where When Whenever
Group 2: OOOOMA (I imagine someone from the 50s saying OOOO Ma Must You Always at their mom so that I can differentiate which A is in this group)
O Only
O Only If
O Only When
O Only Where
M Must
A Always
Group 3: OWUU (OW You dragged out like someone hurt you lol)
O Or
W Without
U Unless
U Until
Group 4: CNNN (like the news station but with an extra N or think of how the c is "cannot" which has 2 n's but either way you have to rememember to add an extra n because theres 3 Ns in this group)
@LucyClark It's just the a difference in how to think about "government responds irrationally." The video represents this as "/RR" (which means not responding rationally). So if the government doesn't have freedom of speech, then does not respond rationally.
If the government does respond rationally (RR), then there is freedom of speech.
The text chooses to just keep the word "irrational". So If no freedom of speech, then government responds irrationally.
If the government does not respond irrationally, then there is freedom of speech.
What matters is that you recognize concepts are the same -- the exact representation in a diagram isn't important.
5/5 lets go! I am really enjoying 7sage and how they cover the material. I have tried another platform and was not understanding the concepts! It was really discouraging and now I am feeling more confident in my ability to take the LSAT! I also don't want to get too ahead of myself because like they have said the LSAT is HARD.
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.
364 comments
5/5 ma boy
I got a 5/5, but I didn't use any of the rules/translation things he taught. I kinda just went about it intuitively...is this bad
5/5!! Shoutout Chat GPT, really helped me understand!
3/5 correct. It's starting to make more sense, but still attempting to wrap my head around it completely. Hang in there everyone!
I found it easier to just break it into A idea and B idea based off the order of the sentence and then Negate A. I was getting lost in trying to fish out the sufficient or necessary like we do for Group 1 and Group 2, but that's more irrelevant here I think
It seems like even though we can do it either way in translating to logic as you state however it seems like it's easier to consider the Sufficient item the one right after the (unless) indicator.
I can't imagine having to do both lawgic translation and the contrapositive and pray to god on a must be true under logic conditionals that one goes right first to connect items first and not having the need to go back to the drawing board. Int he senses that I have to review the other conditional statements and pray I didn't mess one of those up instead of considering the contrapositive on this.
I understand how to 'convert/translate' these sentences and am getting them correct, but I feel like I'm not really understanding the purpose or deeper learning objectives behind all this. How will this help us on the test, in such a time-limited setting? What is the actual goal here? It'd be helpful if lessons told us explicitly how/when to use this on questions in the LSAT, how it's directly applicable, and maybe incorporated more relevant practice.
@ujustgotlittup these lessons provide tools to be able to tackle difficult LR questions using conditional logic, such as some “must be true” questions. Some people are able to figure them out in their head without all the translating, but for myself and many others translating into lawgic helps so much to find the right answer. It may seem tedious now but there might come a time when you’re on a very difficult questions and translating can help you out immensely.
having a hard time understanding q4.... anyone can explain it??
@misoop For number four, the two ideas being compared are "farmers do not know their income for a given calendar year" and "tax returns are calculated and submitted following April.
So, let's say to simplicity's sake, let's say the first idea is "A" and the second idea is "B".
If we use the Negate, sufficient rule, the rest is easy.
/A --> B (If farmers know their income for a given calendar year, then tax returns are calculated and submitted following April.)
/B --> A (If tax returns ARE NOT calculated and submitted following April, then farmers do not know their income for a given calendar year.)
Hope this helps
@LaneyWilliams For "/A --> B (If farmers know their income for a given calendar year, then tax returns are calculated and submitted following April)," when doing the negate rule, did it become "farmers know their income for a given calendar year" because it was previously "farmers do NOT know their income"? In other words, did negating A undo what was previously farmers NOT knowing into farmers knowing? Sorry if this question is confusing!
@YamiMoreno Yes! Because if the negation is that farmers DO know their income, then the reverse is that the DO NOT know their income.
It might help to look at this example by swapping the idea that was originally affirmative.
We know that "until" signals the negate, sufficient rule, so we can say that tax returns are NOT calculated/submitted --> farmers do not know their income. (/B --> A)
Take the contrapositive: farmers do know their income --> tax returns ARE calculated/submitted
(/A --> B)
now compare this to the FIRST response we did. The conditional statements are logically equivalent:
If farmers know their income for a given calendar year, then tax returns are calculated and submitted following April. (/A --> B)
is the logical equivalent to
If tax returns are not calculated and submitted, famers do not know their income. (/B --> A)
I found the last two a bit tricky, but I find identifying the fact of "unless" as the word and knowing that what precedes it is a necessary condition -- then can make the regular sufficient -> necessary claim
"MJbring" is necessary so to get to that we must have PR -> MJbring
Or, mechanically steps otherwise you have identified the necessary claim, negate that claim and swap order with suufficient to form contrapositive; then form the contrapositive of that
Overall, it helps to label FIRST, and then turn it into Lawgic..at first I tried to label as I wrote the formula, and that's how I kept missing the "nots" or "irrationally", etc
For question 3, how do we automatically assume "irrationally" needs to be negated🥲
All I am doing is translate it from English to Lawgic. It is hard, but I know the actual LSAT stimulus will hit harder. I hope these things are gonna stick with me.
heeeeelp :( I'm not understanding exercise no. 3
I wrote:
/pfs -> rr
/rr -> pfs
Why "rr" ("governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally") has a negation? For some odd reason I'm not understanding the explanation {cries in spanglish}
@kristinavoneill this is correct!
5/5 lfg
Man wtf did I just read.... Lol
This is the first lesson where I feel completely lost… does negating either of the main ideas help find the sufficient claim? I feel like my lawgic translations aren’t helping me identify what the original statement is saying lol
@DeborahJimenez I think its helpful if you follow the translation rule which says to 1. take either of the two claims/ideas. 2. negate it. 3. make that the sufficient condition (meaning the other has to be the necessary condition. and then put into lawgic form.
I also think its helpful if you convert into lawgic for both phrases/ideas having a situation where each idea is the sufficient condition, leaving you with 2 lawgic "sentences". This lets you interpret it however makes the most sense to you.
Was a lil confused but chatgpt came to the rescue, think of the indicator words (unless, without, until) as "if not"
@SrujalPatel i love u
@SrujalPatel this method has completely changed it for me! thank you. knowing where to put the if not helps me know which side it goes on
its getting easierrrr
For question 4, I used a double negative.. is that completely incorrect?(aside from grammatically)
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 Thanks for sharing!
@Elideebeep rly helpful ty!!!!!
@16dnholli of course!
@maydhak no problem :)
@Elideebeep this actually made it so much easier shoutout to you!
@Cotty im glad, happy to share!
Do you think it's worth spending time making flashcards for the three groups or just continue on? I'm trying to understand how best to balance study time on these lessons vs doing drills.
@AmandaMorris02 I've done a few PTs and ended up having to come back to this because I didn't have a strong foundation on it. I've used acronyms to help me remember them now.
Group 1: AEIOU (I change the U to W and just imagine 2 Us connected to form a W)
A Any, All
E Every
I If
O The Only
U (W) Where When Whenever
Group 2: OOOOMA (I imagine someone from the 50s saying OOOO Ma Must You Always at their mom so that I can differentiate which A is in this group)
O Only
O Only If
O Only When
O Only Where
M Must
A Always
Group 3: OWUU (OW You dragged out like someone hurt you lol)
O Or
W Without
U Unless
U Until
Group 4: CNNN (like the news station but with an extra N or think of how the c is "cannot" which has 2 n's but either way you have to rememember to add an extra n because theres 3 Ns in this group)
C Cannot
N No
N Not Both
N None
@AmandaMorris02 please see my comment I just made about this, it only took a few days to really cement it in, it’s worth it I promise!
I made flash cards to help memorize group 1-4 conditional indicators https://quizlet.com/1153975729/lsat-7sage-conditional-indicators-to-share-flash-cards/?i=71yhg9&x=1jqY
@WhiteBuffalo Your acronyms and explanations were really helpful. Thank you!
Negate indicators are somehow much easier than groups 1 and 2??
@ThatsAmoree scared to say yes as well
Did anyone notice how the answer button revealed something different from the video JY narrated? Specifically for Q3??
I don't mean the swapped sufficient condition as we see in group 3 translations. They are conflicting ansers... am I crazy?
@LucyClark It's just the a difference in how to think about "government responds irrationally." The video represents this as "/RR" (which means not responding rationally). So if the government doesn't have freedom of speech, then does not respond rationally.
If the government does respond rationally (RR), then there is freedom of speech.
The text chooses to just keep the word "irrational". So If no freedom of speech, then government responds irrationally.
If the government does not respond irrationally, then there is freedom of speech.
What matters is that you recognize concepts are the same -- the exact representation in a diagram isn't important.
@LucyClark glad we both caught that
I am so confused...
@ALMarshall its okay, me too but we will get through this
5/5 lets go! I am really enjoying 7sage and how they cover the material. I have tried another platform and was not understanding the concepts! It was really discouraging and now I am feeling more confident in my ability to take the LSAT! I also don't want to get too ahead of myself because like they have said the LSAT is HARD.