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
negating "without physical exercise" means negating and making sufficient just the "physical exercise" bit. The word "without" is already used up by us following the rule.
Similarly, "unless medical research...", negate only medical research.
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?
1
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!
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.
295 comments
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 !!
Something that helped me:
negating "without physical exercise" means negating and making sufficient just the "physical exercise" bit. The word "without" is already used up by us following the rule.
Similarly, "unless medical research...", negate only medical research.
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?