If the idea is already "negative" (i.e. without a policy, not be successful) does that not matter and we must negate it anyway? I was under the impression that if it was already negative, negating it would make it a positive statement.
Replacing the words "cats" and "mammals" in the sentence structure (or simplified version) has really helped me keep these straight. I just line it up and if it follows logically then I know its correct. (if I did it right).
the way he explained #3 with the r/r made things more complicated than need be. i got it right and understood it until i watched his explanation. #feedback
One thing I learned that has helped me is when you have "unless, until, without" in a sentence just changed it to "if not" and make whatever is after your sufficient and the other the necessary.
For example:
Without physical exercise, health deteriorates.
Change to:
If not physical exercise, health deteriorates.
Lawgic:
/physical exercise -> health deteriorates
I think this way is easier and it helps me convert it quicker.
I know this does not matter for the LSAT and is mostly a technicality for this lesson, but would it be wrong to just simply write out "dont" instead of the / ?
In Q4, I wrote "/Tax returns calculated and submitted → farmers dont know their income" and "/Farmers dont know their income (they do) → tax returns are calculated and submitted"
This is just a preference and does not change the actual meaning of the sentence correct?
Did he not technically do 3 wrong? He Negated one subject and instead of keeping the 2nd subject as is in the necessary, he intuitively flipped irrationally to not rationally, which is not technically equivalent. The conditional statement should be Pfs --> Respond Irrationally. His version becomes problematic in the contrapostive as his statement reads "Responds rationally then policy of free speech. This is not accurate and should instead read "not respond irrationally then free speech policy. He assumed a dichotomy between rationally and irrationally essentially it seems. Would most likely still be correct enough to find the rights answer choice, but just want confirmation that I am correct in identifying a slight flaw as I've been looking out for negation/opposition mistakes of my own.
For questions like #2, how do you know to incorporate "not successful" as /Succ. vs /not succ. if the term given already includes not? I've seen these pop up in other questions and other LSAT resources where sometimes its adventagious to turn a "not x" into a /x and other times its better to leave it as "not x" and possibly use a negating operator on the entire term as it is. I hope this makes sense
I found PowerScore's approach to Group 3 much easier (their so-called "Unless Equation). Avoid 7Sage's "picking either idea" approach, and instead give yourself a hard fast rule:
Whatever is modified by the indicator (i.e. unless, except, or without) is the necessary condition.
The other part becomes the sufficient.
Example: It will not rain unless Zeus is mad. (Zeus is modified by unless).
rain --> (zeus is mad)
Contrapositive: /(zeus is mad) --> /rain
This approach has the advantage of being similar to the real LSAT, where the modified term is typically negated, so you end up with all positives. And, as I said, it gives you a strict rule to guide your thinking.
This essentially is a flipped version of the correct answer, but does it still work as it logically flows (in my opinion)? Such as that, if medical research occurs, then peer review occurs. And vice versa. Or must it follow the order established in the video? As that peer review can only happen if medical research brought it forward so it must be that "review -> medical research"?
Farmers do not know their income for a given calendar year until tax returns are calculated and submitted the following April.
I answered
/knowing income for a given year -> /tax returns calculated
tax returns calculated -> knowing income for a given year
I confused the sufficient condition and necessary condition, any elaboration on what makes the "knowing income tax" the sufficient condition and "tax returns calculated" the necessary condition?
0
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!
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.
281 comments
5/5
How is the second idea in number 3 already negative?
5/5 FINALLY!!
If the idea is already "negative" (i.e. without a policy, not be successful) does that not matter and we must negate it anyway? I was under the impression that if it was already negative, negating it would make it a positive statement.
Does that question make sense?
Replacing the words "cats" and "mammals" in the sentence structure (or simplified version) has really helped me keep these straight. I just line it up and if it follows logically then I know its correct. (if I did it right).
I am super upset I keep flipping the answers.. I understand it to an extent, but my final answers are always backwards...
the way he explained #3 with the r/r made things more complicated than need be. i got it right and understood it until i watched his explanation. #feedback
One thing I learned that has helped me is when you have "unless, until, without" in a sentence just changed it to "if not" and make whatever is after your sufficient and the other the necessary.
For example:
Without physical exercise, health deteriorates.
Change to:
If not physical exercise, health deteriorates.
Lawgic:
/physical exercise -> health deteriorates
I think this way is easier and it helps me convert it quicker.
I keep having them switched I dont know if that wrong for ex
/peer review not occur ---> /research brough to peer review
research brought to peer rview ---> peer review not occur
is this correct
Anyone else really struggling doing these? I Cant for the life of me get the negate, or the dang things in the right order. It's really frustrating.
I believe he did #3 wrong on the video because under the answer tab it is different.
if you struggled with the one, watch the for the word "not"
I know this does not matter for the LSAT and is mostly a technicality for this lesson, but would it be wrong to just simply write out "dont" instead of the / ?
In Q4, I wrote "/Tax returns calculated and submitted → farmers dont know their income" and "/Farmers dont know their income (they do) → tax returns are calculated and submitted"
This is just a preference and does not change the actual meaning of the sentence correct?
i found myself to struggle much more with the previous four modules than with this one.
Did he not technically do 3 wrong? He Negated one subject and instead of keeping the 2nd subject as is in the necessary, he intuitively flipped irrationally to not rationally, which is not technically equivalent. The conditional statement should be Pfs --> Respond Irrationally. His version becomes problematic in the contrapostive as his statement reads "Responds rationally then policy of free speech. This is not accurate and should instead read "not respond irrationally then free speech policy. He assumed a dichotomy between rationally and irrationally essentially it seems. Would most likely still be correct enough to find the rights answer choice, but just want confirmation that I am correct in identifying a slight flaw as I've been looking out for negation/opposition mistakes of my own.
For questions like #2, how do you know to incorporate "not successful" as /Succ. vs /not succ. if the term given already includes not? I've seen these pop up in other questions and other LSAT resources where sometimes its adventagious to turn a "not x" into a /x and other times its better to leave it as "not x" and possibly use a negating operator on the entire term as it is. I hope this makes sense
These rules and symbols really aren't sticking with me... I wish there was another way explained
Q3.
Policy of freedom of speech --> / The government acts irrationally.
The government acts irrationally -->/ Policy of freedom of speech.
Does this also make sense?
Without physical exercise.
Would this not mean /PE.
When negating it /PE --> //PE --> PE
5/5!!!
I think im finding that figuring out the contrapositive first makes this a lot easier
I found PowerScore's approach to Group 3 much easier (their so-called "Unless Equation). Avoid 7Sage's "picking either idea" approach, and instead give yourself a hard fast rule:
Whatever is modified by the indicator (i.e. unless, except, or without) is the necessary condition.
The other part becomes the sufficient.
This approach has the advantage of being similar to the real LSAT, where the modified term is typically negated, so you end up with all positives. And, as I said, it gives you a strict rule to guide your thinking.
Does this answer work for the last question?
"medical research -> review occurs
/review -> /medical research"
This essentially is a flipped version of the correct answer, but does it still work as it logically flows (in my opinion)? Such as that, if medical research occurs, then peer review occurs. And vice versa. Or must it follow the order established in the video? As that peer review can only happen if medical research brought it forward so it must be that "review -> medical research"?
For Q4:
Farmers do not know their income for a given calendar year until tax returns are calculated and submitted the following April.
I answered
/knowing income for a given year -> /tax returns calculated
tax returns calculated -> knowing income for a given year
I confused the sufficient condition and necessary condition, any elaboration on what makes the "knowing income tax" the sufficient condition and "tax returns calculated" the necessary condition?