All I am doing is translate it from English to Lawgic. It is hard, but I know the actual LSAT stimulus will hit harder. I hope these things are gonna stick with me.
Why "rr" ("governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally") has a negation? For some odd reason I'm not understanding the explanation {cries in spanglish}
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.
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)
@LucyClark It's just the a difference in how to think about "government responds irrationally." The video represents this as "/RR" (which means not responding rationally). So if the government doesn't have freedom of speech, then does not respond rationally.
If the government does respond rationally (RR), then there is freedom of speech.
The text chooses to just keep the word "irrational". So If no freedom of speech, then government responds irrationally.
If the government does not respond irrationally, then there is freedom of speech.
What matters is that you recognize concepts are the same -- the exact representation in a diagram isn't important.
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?
@DylanHamerman Yes, sufficient conditions always go to the left of the arrow. It helped me when I was first getting used to Lawgic to draw the two concentric circles and label where each condition went before I wrote out the conditional statement.
@Junaaa You can technically choose either clause in the sentence to negate, as long as you make the other positive. e.g. for "Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates," you can say /blackouts -> heat wave abates OR /heat wave abates -> blackouts. This works because the two statements are each other's contrapositives.
@SonyaThomas The original two clauses say that "Farmers DO NOT KNOW their income for a given calendar year" UNTIL "Tax returns are calculated and submitted the following April".
In converting to lawgic I make the first clause /FI (the farmers DO NOT KNOW their income hence the slash and I make the FI stand for Farmers know income) and the second clause I make TRC (tax returns calculated.)
In lawgic without doing the negate sufficient yet but putting the farmers in the sufficient spot, it would look like /FI -> TRC.
If you then take that and negate the sufficient as it is here then the result is //FI -> TRC. Since it's double negated that just results in a non negated sentence FI -> TRC. The original statement is then "If farmers know their income then tax returns were calculated and submitted in April."
If you take the contrapositive of that the result is /TRC -> /FI. Or in English "tax returns NOT calculated and submitted following April, then farmers DO NOT KNOW income."
The reason question 4 is tricky is because the first clause is already negated which can make it confusing when negating the sufficient. I hope this made sense and helped out.
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.
@Katrina.chaf I am confused as well on how this will save time on the LSAT by adding extra steps instead of trying to find the meaning with quicker solutions or understanding
@JDrake7 If you accurately understand these words every time intuitively, then there's no need to apply these rules. But the issue is certain words -- especially "Unless" and "only if" -- are easy to misinterpret. So then you have to make a decision -- do you want to continue going with intuition and occasionally getting these words wrong. Or do you want to use a translation rule that gets you to the right understanding every time? It's going to feel slow at first, because it's the first time you're doing it. But imagine if you translate "unless" 100 times -- you'll be faster, right? And over the long-term, your intuition will be better and you'll be much less likely to get "unless" wrong based on an "intuitive" understanding.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you for the reply. Since I made this reply I have greatly changed my mindset on Lawgic and it is starting to click more. I agree with what you're saying. Thank you
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.
346 comments
All I am doing is translate it from English to Lawgic. It is hard, but I know the actual LSAT stimulus will hit harder. I hope these things are gonna stick with me.
heeeeelp :( I'm not understanding exercise no. 3
I wrote:
/pfs -> rr
/rr -> pfs
Why "rr" ("governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally") has a negation? For some odd reason I'm not understanding the explanation {cries in spanglish}
@kristinavoneill this is correct!
5/5 lfg
Man wtf did I just read.... Lol
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.
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
its getting easierrrr
For question 4, I used a double negative.. is that completely incorrect?(aside from grammatically)
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 :)
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!
Negate indicators are somehow much easier than groups 1 and 2??
@ThatsAmoree scared to say yes as well
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?
@LucyClark It's just the a difference in how to think about "government responds irrationally." The video represents this as "/RR" (which means not responding rationally). So if the government doesn't have freedom of speech, then does not respond rationally.
If the government does respond rationally (RR), then there is freedom of speech.
The text chooses to just keep the word "irrational". So If no freedom of speech, then government responds irrationally.
If the government does not respond irrationally, then there is freedom of speech.
What matters is that you recognize concepts are the same -- the exact representation in a diagram isn't important.
@LucyClark glad we both caught that
I am so confused...
@ALMarshall its okay, me too but we will get through this
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
@KaleaWatts were you able to identify how you diagramed it incorrectly?
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?
@DylanHamerman Yes, sufficient conditions always go to the left of the arrow. It helped me when I was first getting used to Lawgic to draw the two concentric circles and label where each condition went before I wrote out the conditional statement.
So for these types of sentences you negate the first half and keep the second half the same correct?
@Junaaa You can technically choose either clause in the sentence to negate, as long as you make the other positive. e.g. for "Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates," you can say /blackouts -> heat wave abates OR /heat wave abates -> blackouts. This works because the two statements are each other's contrapositives.
4 is confusing, can someone break it down a lil more. I have a hard time with switching out group 3 statements
@SonyaThomas The original two clauses say that "Farmers DO NOT KNOW their income for a given calendar year" UNTIL "Tax returns are calculated and submitted the following April".
In converting to lawgic I make the first clause /FI (the farmers DO NOT KNOW their income hence the slash and I make the FI stand for Farmers know income) and the second clause I make TRC (tax returns calculated.)
In lawgic without doing the negate sufficient yet but putting the farmers in the sufficient spot, it would look like /FI -> TRC.
If you then take that and negate the sufficient as it is here then the result is //FI -> TRC. Since it's double negated that just results in a non negated sentence FI -> TRC. The original statement is then "If farmers know their income then tax returns were calculated and submitted in April."
If you take the contrapositive of that the result is /TRC -> /FI. Or in English "tax returns NOT calculated and submitted following April, then farmers DO NOT KNOW income."
The reason question 4 is tricky is because the first clause is already negated which can make it confusing when negating the sufficient. I hope this made sense and helped out.
@SeanWatson this helped a lot thank 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.
So I'm confused...are we supposed to learn all these indicator condition words & their rules, or is this supposed to be intuitive?
@Katrina.chaf I am confused as well on how this will save time on the LSAT by adding extra steps instead of trying to find the meaning with quicker solutions or understanding
@JDrake7 If you accurately understand these words every time intuitively, then there's no need to apply these rules. But the issue is certain words -- especially "Unless" and "only if" -- are easy to misinterpret. So then you have to make a decision -- do you want to continue going with intuition and occasionally getting these words wrong. Or do you want to use a translation rule that gets you to the right understanding every time? It's going to feel slow at first, because it's the first time you're doing it. But imagine if you translate "unless" 100 times -- you'll be faster, right? And over the long-term, your intuition will be better and you'll be much less likely to get "unless" wrong based on an "intuitive" understanding.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you for the reply. Since I made this reply I have greatly changed my mindset on Lawgic and it is starting to click more. I agree with what you're saying. Thank you