5/5 but once I started overthinking it, it started getting all jumbled in my head. One moment it would click and then the next I’d be confused again and would have to look back at the former questions I got correct as a model. It took me way too long
Hello, I'm confused about number four. In the video, when translating it into Lawgic, he did not negate " k($)" in the beginning of the equation. Is that because, when dealing with a negated claim and a negate indicator, they even each other out and both become positive?
I'm upset and frustrated. Because in the conditional logic video it was stated that UNLESS should be treated as introducing a necessary claim.
These questions treat it as a sufficient.
Why even bother showing us that video if the rules were going to change? This is already hard enough without the contradiction or lack of explanation as to why the rules are different for the initial video vs this.
4/5. I was super confused on Q4 but now i get it. /tax returns calc and submitted in following April->/do not know their income. I forgot do not know automatically needs a slash, whoops!
@Peppermint-patty Yeah doing the little mathematical equations might be easier for some people but I can read it just fine as is. I'm still doing them anyway though!
I got 5/5 but my worry is what will happen in the wild... I knew the rule to apply... I feel like using this rule in the start is good but truly understanding how these function in the wild is the way to a really good score... like if I show myself 10 translations of all 3 groups ... can I get all 10 ... because they do different things
I have one example that I created that I'd like confirmation that I'm understanding it correctly.
Example: There will be a hot dog cart in the park unless it is raining.
Lawgic:
/ HDC --> raining
/ raining --> HDC
If there is not a hot dog cart, it is raining.
If it is not raining, there is a hot dog cart.
Is this saying the absence of hot dog cart guarantees the presence of rain? But, the presence of rain does NOT guanteee the absence of the hot dog cart?
In the contrapositive, is this also saying the no rain means the hot dog cart will be there? But the hot dog cart being at the park does NOT mean there is not rain?
Let's say that it rains 10 days in a given year. The hot dog cart is not present in the park for only 5 days out of the year, and each of those 5 days is a day that it rains. We know that each day the hot dog cart was not in the park it rained, but not every day that it rained was the hot dog absent from the park.
Having a hard time with #5, it's the only one I got wrong and the video isn't really helping.
I got /PR --> /MJ and MJ --> PR.
I know it's wrong but I'm not really sure how.
Am I confusing the necessary and sufficient? If I am, then with an "unless" statement, how can I tell which statement is the necessary and which is the sufficient? Help!!
@kaysh I think you slipped up in terms of negating the sufficient condition in your first example, "/PR --> /MJ". In this particular example, 'peer review will not occur' is technically already '/PR' without using the translation rules. To negate this clause, it would really translate to 'PR'. This would then change your translation to PR --> MJ.
For question #3 I am confused on where the negation came from in the video explanation. In the answer from the text there is no negation and I got that correct. Just not understanding why we would negate the second clause.
@JuliaSchroeder It looks like the video wrote out an irrational response to be the same as not a rational response by assigning RR as the symbol for a rational response and negating it. Though I’d imagine it’s correct either way.
@JuliaSchroeder Try using the " If Not" method. if you see without, unless, until, anything following those indicator will be turn into an "if not" statement.
ex. Without a policy of freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally.
IF NOT statement: IF you DO NOT have freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally.
LAWGIC: /policy of freedom of speech, -> governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally
/governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally -> policy of freedom of speech
that if not statement will become the sufficient condition.
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.
393 comments
#3, why would you negate "government respond to dangerous ideas irrationally"? It makes no sense.
5/5 but once I started overthinking it, it started getting all jumbled in my head. One moment it would click and then the next I’d be confused again and would have to look back at the former questions I got correct as a model. It took me way too long
I just keep getting everything backwards
like for n4 i put /farmers know income -> /tax returns calculated
5/5 easy
@mutayeb YUP 5/5 peasy
4/5, q2 tripped me up. lowkey dont think the explanation is helping that much. ill come back to it and see if I understand it better
@Rabee came back after some time and i definitely got it easily
Hello, I'm confused about number four. In the video, when translating it into Lawgic, he did not negate " k($)" in the beginning of the equation. Is that because, when dealing with a negated claim and a negate indicator, they even each other out and both become positive?
I'm upset and frustrated. Because in the conditional logic video it was stated that UNLESS should be treated as introducing a necessary claim.
These questions treat it as a sufficient.
Why even bother showing us that video if the rules were going to change? This is already hard enough without the contradiction or lack of explanation as to why the rules are different for the initial video vs this.
5/5 this group specifically is starting to click
4/5. I was super confused on Q4 but now i get it. /tax returns calc and submitted in following April->/do not know their income. I forgot do not know automatically needs a slash, whoops!
I personally don’t understand the point of translating lawgic when the English one makes more sense to me.
@Peppermint-patty Me too, I was scoring better on short practice tests rather than these. I keep flipping the answers around. My head hurts lol
@Peppermint-patty Yeah doing the little mathematical equations might be easier for some people but I can read it just fine as is. I'm still doing them anyway though!
I got 5/5 but my worry is what will happen in the wild... I knew the rule to apply... I feel like using this rule in the start is good but truly understanding how these function in the wild is the way to a really good score... like if I show myself 10 translations of all 3 groups ... can I get all 10 ... because they do different things
I got 5/5 using the " If Not" method. if you see without, unless, until, anything following those indicator will be turn into an "if not" statement.
ex. Without a policy of freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally.
If not statement: if you do not have freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally
LAWGIC: /FoS -> governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally
/governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally -> FoS
I have one example that I created that I'd like confirmation that I'm understanding it correctly.
Example: There will be a hot dog cart in the park unless it is raining.
Lawgic:
/ HDC --> raining
/ raining --> HDC
If there is not a hot dog cart, it is raining.
If it is not raining, there is a hot dog cart.
Is this saying the absence of hot dog cart guarantees the presence of rain? But, the presence of rain does NOT guanteee the absence of the hot dog cart?
In the contrapositive, is this also saying the no rain means the hot dog cart will be there? But the hot dog cart being at the park does NOT mean there is not rain?
@TaylorBranch I think you are correct.
Let's say that it rains 10 days in a given year. The hot dog cart is not present in the park for only 5 days out of the year, and each of those 5 days is a day that it rains. We know that each day the hot dog cart was not in the park it rained, but not every day that it rained was the hot dog absent from the park.
I believe this logic supports all of your claims.
4.5/5 bc #4 tripped me up.
I did:
A —> B and /B —> /A
I should have done:
/A —> /B and B —> A
This makes it way more confusing
Starting to make sense. I just need to make sure to remember these groups lol.
Surprisingly easy (way more than Group 1 or 2). Love this!
Having a hard time with #5, it's the only one I got wrong and the video isn't really helping.
I got /PR --> /MJ and MJ --> PR.
I know it's wrong but I'm not really sure how.
Am I confusing the necessary and sufficient? If I am, then with an "unless" statement, how can I tell which statement is the necessary and which is the sufficient? Help!!
@kaysh I think you slipped up in terms of negating the sufficient condition in your first example, "/PR --> /MJ". In this particular example, 'peer review will not occur' is technically already '/PR' without using the translation rules. To negate this clause, it would really translate to 'PR'. This would then change your translation to PR --> MJ.
@mkim13 oh you're a gem, thank you!!
#help
For question #3 I am confused on where the negation came from in the video explanation. In the answer from the text there is no negation and I got that correct. Just not understanding why we would negate the second clause.
@JuliaSchroeder It looks like the video wrote out an irrational response to be the same as not a rational response by assigning RR as the symbol for a rational response and negating it. Though I’d imagine it’s correct either way.
@JuliaSchroeder Try using the " If Not" method. if you see without, unless, until, anything following those indicator will be turn into an "if not" statement.
ex. Without a policy of freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally.
IF NOT statement: IF you DO NOT have freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally.
LAWGIC: /policy of freedom of speech, -> governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally
/governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally -> policy of freedom of speech
that if not statement will become the sufficient condition.
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
@jaxmineflores idkk i did the same thing and got them too! the rules/translations lowkey made me confused??
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.