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.
5/5 - I feel what made sure I corrected myself as I translated the conditional relations into lawgic and not forgetting negation already present was double checking by translating it back into English into the "if-then" statement. IF it didn't make sense THEN I must've messed up in my lawgic translation in some way.
Question 1: “Without physical exercise, health deteriorates.”
Identify the logical indicator → “without” which is part of group 3.
Next Identify the idea: → one idea is physical exercise, and the other idea is health deterioration.
Let's follow through with group 3 translations by labeling these ideas. (PC ) (HD)
Let’s negate it → /(PE) → (HD) or /(HD) → (PE)
Translating back into english: → “if there's no physical exercise, then my health is going to deteriorate.” “If my health is not deteriorating, maybe lots of other things are, but for sure I’m getting physical exercise.”
Won't all group translations always have two correct translations and two incorrect translations?
For example:
Correct: If not physical exercise, then health deteriorates.
Correct Contra: If not health deteriorates, then physical exercise.
Wrong: If physical exercise, then not health deteriorates
Wrong Contra: If health deteriorates, then not physical exercise.
There will always be four possible translations, two correct, two incorrect. I think sometimes it helps to know all four possibilities to clearly understand why the correct ones are in fact correct.
My final answers are backwards 25% of the time and I cannot figure out why. If we are supposed to choose which one we want for the group 3 translation rule, and then make it the sufficient, does that one always go to the left of the arrow?
I find these drills great, BUT it is a big leap from drills to live practice. Does this course bridge drills to LSAT? That is, practice applying the translations to real LSAT questions? Also, it seems obvious that ideally I answer questions intuitively where possible, and use this lawgic/translation process only when stuck/slow.
Ok, I was getting so lost with the 'unless or until' but once i started changing each unless or until to 'without' it made total sense to me. Maybe this isnt the best way but it worked out well for me
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.
323 comments
Negate indicators are somehow much easier than groups 1 and 2??
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?
I am so confused...
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.
Note to myself: Make sure sufficient conditions always go to the left. Regardless of dealing with negate sufficient or otherwise
5/5 - I feel what made sure I corrected myself as I translated the conditional relations into lawgic and not forgetting negation already present was double checking by translating it back into English into the "if-then" statement. IF it didn't make sense THEN I must've messed up in my lawgic translation in some way.
Question 1: “Without physical exercise, health deteriorates.”
Identify the logical indicator → “without” which is part of group 3.
Next Identify the idea: → one idea is physical exercise, and the other idea is health deterioration.
Let's follow through with group 3 translations by labeling these ideas. (PC ) (HD)
Let’s negate it → /(PE) → (HD) or /(HD) → (PE)
Translating back into english: → “if there's no physical exercise, then my health is going to deteriorate.” “If my health is not deteriorating, maybe lots of other things are, but for sure I’m getting physical exercise.”
Won't all group translations always have two correct translations and two incorrect translations?
For example:
Correct: If not physical exercise, then health deteriorates.
Correct Contra: If not health deteriorates, then physical exercise.
Wrong: If physical exercise, then not health deteriorates
Wrong Contra: If health deteriorates, then not physical exercise.
There will always be four possible translations, two correct, two incorrect. I think sometimes it helps to know all four possibilities to clearly understand why the correct ones are in fact correct.
#5 bro almost 5/5
4 and 5 killed my vibe
My final answers are backwards 25% of the time and I cannot figure out why. If we are supposed to choose which one we want for the group 3 translation rule, and then make it the sufficient, does that one always go to the left of the arrow?
So for these types of sentences you negate the first half and keep the second half the same correct?
4 is confusing, can someone break it down a lil more. I have a hard time with switching out group 3 statements
I find these drills great, BUT it is a big leap from drills to live practice. Does this course bridge drills to LSAT? That is, practice applying the translations to real LSAT questions? Also, it seems obvious that ideally I answer questions intuitively where possible, and use this lawgic/translation process only when stuck/slow.
So I'm confused...are we supposed to learn all these indicator condition words & their rules, or is this supposed to be intuitive?
5/5 LETS GO
5/5!
Anyone else getting hung up on the double negatives? lol
YESSSS 5/5 I love this curriculum
5/5
I translated all 5 correctly...I just get confused on the symbols. But besides that I can translate them lol
Anytime I face these questions I revert back to my Logic class:
"unless, without, etc = if not"
unless x = if not x = ~ x
This has me completely confused. I feel like the teacher is contradicting previous lessons
Ok, I was getting so lost with the 'unless or until' but once i started changing each unless or until to 'without' it made total sense to me. Maybe this isnt the best way but it worked out well for me
5/5 !!