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.
@AbigailEvans Good call. This works if you can establish sufficient/necessary. I went further on and ended up going back to strengthen my foundation on sufficient/necessary. I recommend getting super strong at doing this first, then you can take the / version of negated sufficients (e.g., in group 3 scenarios). Then, when you get to group 4 scenarios later on, you can take the / version of the necessities.
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.
@GrahamSC You can look into this with two different lenses:
Lens 1: when you don't have time in the exam to do all this logical analysis, you need to find which clause sounds like a absolute fact statement clause (almost like a support/premise) and which clause is a claim dependent on that clause (conclusion)
for this sentence, it is being claimed that it will not rain unless something specific/absolute happens, which is, Zeus being mad.
It will not rain unless Zeus is mad.
=In order for it to rain Zeus must (necessity indicator) be mad
=It is necessary for Zeus to be mad in order for it to rain.
R->ZM.
Again,
Juxtapose it into the cat-mammal example:
It is necessary for it to be a mammal for it to be a cat.
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
Hang in there, I had to keep going back to make sure I wasnt tripping or that it was actually making sense. And thats okay, this is confusing stuff, but you got this!!! BREATHEEEEEE and work on it until it makes sense!
i was taught through other courses that unless, except, until, and without are words which only modify the necessary condition and negate the sufficient. I think following this rule helped clear up a lot of confusion for me instead of just randomly assigning it and trying to see which sentence made more sense.
This is hard!!! Do not feel bad if you do not get it in the first attempt. Keep reading and trying to understand it. I got it after like 2 days working on it.
can agree! i switched to volume 1 and did a bunch of the lessons there and then came back to this and i finished this whole thing in 30 mins! so def possible. keep at it!
I kept switching between vol 1 and 2, so anything in the logic section and also helps a lot remembering the indicators. Don't worry the more u practice the better you will become. It does take a long time though. I am still trying to perfect it!
@Reagswright I just go through the exercise before I even try to figure out what the sentence is saying. I think it helps if you do the symbols first then read out what they mean. That should help avoid confusion.
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
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.
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.
First, directly: This will apply heavily to inference questions where you will need to be able to know the logical chain.
Usually questions is like 'which of the following based on principles must be true'
Answers, in my experience, will literally be (in English) A -> B or /B -> A---kind of things.
Another direct is the question types sufficient assumption and necessary assumptions. You will be looking sometimes for the 'gap' in the logical chain, so you must be able to identify the 'presented' chain accurately first.
Indirectly as knowing the logical pathways helps identify the flaws (another common question type) in the argument.
This may be late, and you already know, but in case anyone else sees the comment.
#feedback these skill builder drills in particular have been so helpful in strengthening my conditional logic. please come out with more of these with the different indicators from all groups...I've done every one!
Good to know that negations can already be in the sentence. I thought I'd have to have something like "/Not serves well" which would get confusing fast.
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)
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
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.
407 comments
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.
@AbigailEvans Good call. This works if you can establish sufficient/necessary. I went further on and ended up going back to strengthen my foundation on sufficient/necessary. I recommend getting super strong at doing this first, then you can take the / version of negated sufficients (e.g., in group 3 scenarios). Then, when you get to group 4 scenarios later on, you can take the / version of the necessities.
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.
I realize I made this unclear. To clarify:
*2. The other part is negated and becomes the sufficient.
The advantage is typically the non-modified term (the sufficient) is already negated, so negating it leads to all positives.
@GrahamSC You can look into this with two different lenses:
Lens 1: when you don't have time in the exam to do all this logical analysis, you need to find which clause sounds like a absolute fact statement clause (almost like a support/premise) and which clause is a claim dependent on that clause (conclusion)
for this sentence, it is being claimed that it will not rain unless something specific/absolute happens, which is, Zeus being mad.
It will not rain unless Zeus is mad.
=In order for it to rain Zeus must (necessity indicator) be mad
=It is necessary for Zeus to be mad in order for it to rain.
R->ZM.
Again,
Juxtapose it into the cat-mammal example:
It is necessary for it to be a mammal for it to be a cat.
C->M
Lens 2: Substitute it with the If not
It will not rain unless Zeus is mad.
=It will not rain if not Zeus is mad
=If Zeus is not mad, then it will not rain
/ZM->/R
R->ZM
this made me kind of lose my mind a little bit :)
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
Hang in there, I had to keep going back to make sure I wasnt tripping or that it was actually making sense. And thats okay, this is confusing stuff, but you got this!!! BREATHEEEEEE and work on it until it makes sense!
i was taught through other courses that unless, except, until, and without are words which only modify the necessary condition and negate the sufficient. I think following this rule helped clear up a lot of confusion for me instead of just randomly assigning it and trying to see which sentence made more sense.
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
Anyone else getting hung up on the double negatives? lol
@ClydeB yes #5 got me
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
This is hard!!! Do not feel bad if you do not get it in the first attempt. Keep reading and trying to understand it. I got it after like 2 days working on it.
can agree! i switched to volume 1 and did a bunch of the lessons there and then came back to this and i finished this whole thing in 30 mins! so def possible. keep at it!
which lessons do you recommend in v1 that you felt like helped you with this exercise?
Sorry, can you explain this more? What do you mean by volume 1 and 2, versions 1 and 2? Or is that something different?
I kept switching between vol 1 and 2, so anything in the logic section and also helps a lot remembering the indicators. Don't worry the more u practice the better you will become. It does take a long time though. I am still trying to perfect it!
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.
@Reagswright I just go through the exercise before I even try to figure out what the sentence is saying. I think it helps if you do the symbols first then read out what they mean. That should help avoid confusion.
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
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.
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.
@Canadian-Ice
Yes. It does, both directly and indirectly.
First, directly: This will apply heavily to inference questions where you will need to be able to know the logical chain.
Usually questions is like 'which of the following based on principles must be true'
Answers, in my experience, will literally be (in English) A -> B or /B -> A---kind of things.
Another direct is the question types sufficient assumption and necessary assumptions. You will be looking sometimes for the 'gap' in the logical chain, so you must be able to identify the 'presented' chain accurately first.
Indirectly as knowing the logical pathways helps identify the flaws (another common question type) in the argument.
This may be late, and you already know, but in case anyone else sees the comment.
How is the second idea in number 3 already negative?
@KeziaH19 I'm also lost... I got it right via the answer button, but in the video explanation, I was wrong?
@KeziaH19 The work without is a not word so it becomes a / -- ik thats late hope that helps tho :)
@AidenG123 This happened with my answer as well. Not sure how their is a negation in the clause?
For question 3, how do we automatically assume "irrationally" needs to be negated🥲
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!
Just when I thought logic games were out... they pull them back in!
Our true enemy is yet to reveal itself.
LMFAO !!!
#feedback these skill builder drills in particular have been so helpful in strengthening my conditional logic. please come out with more of these with the different indicators from all groups...I've done every one!
Good to know that negations can already be in the sentence. I thought I'd have to have something like "/Not serves well" which would get confusing fast.
Man wtf did I just read.... Lol
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!
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
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?