taking my prep tests, I can already see a difference in my LR scores! these lessons have been already helpful in helping me break down convoluted sentences. #feedback
How much should we be trusting our own intuition when we read these? For this one, I found I was able to use my intuition to get to the right answer quicker than following these steps. That said, following these steps makes me make sure that I am not confusing the necessary and sufficient, which I can sometimes do! I guess my question is, how do you know when you can trust yourself to take the training wheels off? Is that something we can do via blind review (check answers using this formula) or is having the training wheels faster every time?
@KGonzalez I feel same way. I literally asked same thing last video! Maybe for more complex it will help. But Im also confused a bit with when I negate.
@AHswag unfortunately/fortunately yes. I did this course and didn’t bother memorizing them the first time and it really impacted my ability to get to the correct answer. Going through the course all over again and this is the part I’m giving the most attention now.
I understand all these lessons but I'm confused on how they translate to selecting the correct answer on the LSAT. Is this explained in future lessons??
@Brie97 I had the same question as well. I have not made it through foundations yet, but I believe when we are able to apply our Lawgic to a stimulus we will be able to depict what the question is asking easier. And find out flaws or what must be true, etc.
How is “None of the Americans attended the dictator's party” a conditional statement? Isn’t it just a fact and there is no relation between American and Party.
I understand that if you translate to “If one is an American, then one did not attend the party” it is a conditional statement as there is a sufficient and necessary condition, but that’s only because you translated it to have a relationship.
Then for the fact “the sky is blue”, can’t I translate it to “if there is a sky, then it is blue” and now that is a conditional statement as well.
@rkdwlghv I am struggling to also understand this too. I really need to understand how is this a necessary condition if when it’s translated i understand it as a sufficient condition??
Mostly yes, this is because the positive sufficient condition is always enough to know the status of the necessary condition. Using "All cats are mammals", if one is a cat (sufficient) then I know, for a fact, that one must also be a mammal.
Cat → Mammal
On the other hand, the positive necessary does not always indicate the sufficient. If one is a mammal, then I do not have enough information to know if one is a cat. If I know the sufficient condition is met, then I know that the necessary condition must be met.
Contrarily, the negative necessary condition is enough to know if a sufficient condition can be met. Using the "All cats are mammals" again, if one is not a mammal (necessary), then I can validly infer that one is not a cat.
im confused you say pick either idea and make it necessary condition. I figured that in conditional logic, the hardest part was confusing sufficent with necessary clause. How can we just pick either idea, when one is the sufficient (trigger) from a nesseary result?
I am super confused by "you pick either idea, then negate that idea, then make that idea the necessary condition." Same for the Negate Sufficient lesson. I automatically look for the sufficient/necessary condition and I'm cinfusing myself trying to pick an idea.
Don't worry about which concept is the sufficient or necessary condition, the video specifies that YOU are the one that is making the condition sufficient or necessary by placing it on the left or right side of the arrow. Sufficient always goes on the left, Necessary always goes on the right.
Using the example from the video "None of the Americans attended the dictator's party." Which one is the sufficient or necessary condition? Who cares!!! We are going to make one of them the sufficient or necessary condition by just following the translation rule.
First we translate the two main concepts in the video into symbols
- A and ADP
Now we must know what translation rule to use, well the word in this is "none" so we know we are going to use the group #4 translation rule.
Now we use the rule. Pick one concept, negate it and slap it on the right side (the necessary side) of the arrow.
"But which one do i pick?" it does not matter.
I could choose to pick A, negate it, and throw it on the right side of the arrow.
Ex. ADP --> /A
Or I could choose ADP and do the same.
A --> /ADP
Finally, to get the contra positive you flip and negate
don't even think about which one is the sufficient/necessary condition. Just identify the two main subjects, you negate one of them, then whichever one you negate, make it either the sufficient condition or the necessary condition based on the identifier.
in this case, is the contra positive going to be the answer? because in the video the sentences he translated were not the contra positives like they did in group 3.
This one is more confusing to me than Group 3. For Negate Necessary, are both statements (ADP → /A and A → /ADP) correct? Versus Negate Sufficient, where only one is correct?
@ShanR Negate sufficient both ideas are correct as well. Remember that one idea is the contrapositive of the other one. the last example in negate sufficient was just to explain how we can read the sentence wrong if we don't do this analysis.
I don't get how you can just pick any idea and choose if it's going to be the sufficient or necessary condition. Shouldn't we understand what the sentence is trying to say too?
@iwillcrushthelsat Yes. Your intuition is right. I tried to actually understand the logic before relying on indicators. I have done it this past week and it has helped a lot. It is disappointing 7Sage doesnt stress this. You should definitely do it because this isn't just about getting it memorized-we are dealing with a logic based test so you need to actually understand it.
@iwillcrushthelsat Yes, you should try to understand the sentence always. Knowledge of conditional indicators can be helpful in getting to the right understanding of a sentence or in seeing alternate ways to express the same idea. Take, "unless."
"Unless you finish your vegetables, you won't get dessert."
Many people interpret this incorrectly as "If you finish your vegetables, then you'll get dessert." If you tell them to just use their intuition or think about the meaning of the sentence, they'll often get it wrong. Here, knowledge of how to translate "unless" statements is helpful in getting to the right understanding.
Quick question here: In the example wouldn't the translation be "if one is one of the Americans, then etc" OR "if one attended the dictator's party then one is not one of the Americans"?? I know this is small but presumably, there could be a group of Americans that the example is not referring to. Rather it is referring to some group of "the Americans" that according to the author could not include the broad group of all Americans. Am I right about this?
No, this is falling for the oldest trick in the book. Your lawgic is saying, "If you're not American, you attended the dictator's party." Maybe the Finnish didn't go either, or the Cambodians. With your contrapositive, then, it's saying, "If you didn't attend the dictator's party then you're American." So, again, that's not necessarily true. Finnish people didn't attend either.
ADP → /A means, basically, "If you were in attendance at the dictator's party, then you're not an American. Its contrapositive, will, of course, say the same thing. A → /ADP, "If you're an American then you were not in attendance at the dictator's party."
Should it be "If one attended the dictator's party, then one is not an American." instead of "If attended the dictator's party, then one is not an American."?
I was going to originally ask if "/A->ADP" would work as well but I'm starting to get that it would be confusing sufficency and necessity. I think I'm starting to catch on.
Here we discuss the GROUP 4 indicators, which involve negative one of the ideas before making it the necessary condition. Group 4 indicators are: →
NO
NONE
NOT BOTH
CANNOT
Translation Rule: “pick either idea, negate that idea, then make that idea the necessary condition. The other idea from GROUP 3 falls into the place of a sufficient condition.”
EXAMPLE #1: “None of the Americans attended the dictator’s party.”
Step 1 Identify the Initial Indicator: → here is the word “none” that's group 4.
Step 2 Identify the two main concepts: → main concept (subject) none of the Americans other concept (predicate) attended the dictator’s party.
Step 3 Assign symbols to the two main concepts: → American (A) and use (ADP) for attending the dictator’s party.
Step 4 Apply the translation rule: (ADP) → (/A)
→ (/ADP)
Translating this new form back into English: “If one is an American, then one did not attend the dictator’s party.” and the other translation looks like this → “If one attended the dictator’s party, then one is not an American.”
110 comments
taking my prep tests, I can already see a difference in my LR scores! these lessons have been already helpful in helping me break down convoluted sentences. #feedback
Sufficient conditions:
if, when, where, all, every, any
Necessary conditions:
only, only if, only when, only where, always, must
Negate, sufficient:
or, unless, until, without
Negate, necessary:
no, none, not both, and cannot
@OmarAbuaita Don't forget for sufficient conditions: "The Only" also exists.
How much should we be trusting our own intuition when we read these? For this one, I found I was able to use my intuition to get to the right answer quicker than following these steps. That said, following these steps makes me make sure that I am not confusing the necessary and sufficient, which I can sometimes do! I guess my question is, how do you know when you can trust yourself to take the training wheels off? Is that something we can do via blind review (check answers using this formula) or is having the training wheels faster every time?
@KGonzalez I feel same way. I literally asked same thing last video! Maybe for more complex it will help. But Im also confused a bit with when I negate.
These explanations are so much more easier than what they do in Kaplan books 😭🙏
#help Would it be valuable to commit to memory the words groups 1, 2, 3, and 4? Thank you
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 Thank you!
@PowerUp_Tutoring of course!
Just to confirm, the formula is always: Sufficient condition → Necessary condition
Meaning, the sufficient is always on the left and necessary on the right?
thank you!
Yes
So is the only/best way to identify these conditions to memorize all of the indicator words? Because there are a LOT of them lol
@AHswag unfortunately/fortunately yes. I did this course and didn’t bother memorizing them the first time and it really impacted my ability to get to the correct answer. Going through the course all over again and this is the part I’m giving the most attention now.
I understand all these lessons but I'm confused on how they translate to selecting the correct answer on the LSAT. Is this explained in future lessons??
@Brie97 I had the same question as well. I have not made it through foundations yet, but I believe when we are able to apply our Lawgic to a stimulus we will be able to depict what the question is asking easier. And find out flaws or what must be true, etc.
#help
How is “None of the Americans attended the dictator's party” a conditional statement? Isn’t it just a fact and there is no relation between American and Party.
I understand that if you translate to “If one is an American, then one did not attend the party” it is a conditional statement as there is a sufficient and necessary condition, but that’s only because you translated it to have a relationship.
Then for the fact “the sky is blue”, can’t I translate it to “if there is a sky, then it is blue” and now that is a conditional statement as well.
@rkdwlghv I am struggling to also understand this too. I really need to understand how is this a necessary condition if when it’s translated i understand it as a sufficient condition??
Pls HELP thx you!
Is the necessary condition always on the right side of the arrow?
Mostly yes, this is because the positive sufficient condition is always enough to know the status of the necessary condition. Using "All cats are mammals", if one is a cat (sufficient) then I know, for a fact, that one must also be a mammal.
Cat → Mammal
On the other hand, the positive necessary does not always indicate the sufficient. If one is a mammal, then I do not have enough information to know if one is a cat. If I know the sufficient condition is met, then I know that the necessary condition must be met.
Contrarily, the negative necessary condition is enough to know if a sufficient condition can be met. Using the "All cats are mammals" again, if one is not a mammal (necessary), then I can validly infer that one is not a cat.
/M → /C
im confused you say pick either idea and make it necessary condition. I figured that in conditional logic, the hardest part was confusing sufficent with necessary clause. How can we just pick either idea, when one is the sufficient (trigger) from a nesseary result?
@AlexHaro No dogs can fly.
There are 2 concepts: dogs, and fly
Pick one of them, negate it, and make that negated concept the necessary condition.
Let's pick "dogs", negate it and make it the necessary condition:
If it flies --> NOT a dog
Or, you can pick "fly". Negate that, make it the necessary condition (right side of the arrow).
If it's a dog --> NOT fly
@Kevin_Lin thank you.
@Kevin_Lin bruh I don't know why I was so confused too! I felt dumb once I read this and went "OhhHHHHhhHHHhhhhhhh" lol. dammit
I am super confused by "you pick either idea, then negate that idea, then make that idea the necessary condition." Same for the Negate Sufficient lesson. I automatically look for the sufficient/necessary condition and I'm cinfusing myself trying to pick an idea.
Don't worry about which concept is the sufficient or necessary condition, the video specifies that YOU are the one that is making the condition sufficient or necessary by placing it on the left or right side of the arrow. Sufficient always goes on the left, Necessary always goes on the right.
Using the example from the video "None of the Americans attended the dictator's party." Which one is the sufficient or necessary condition? Who cares!!! We are going to make one of them the sufficient or necessary condition by just following the translation rule.
First we translate the two main concepts in the video into symbols
- A and ADP
Now we must know what translation rule to use, well the word in this is "none" so we know we are going to use the group #4 translation rule.
Now we use the rule. Pick one concept, negate it and slap it on the right side (the necessary side) of the arrow.
"But which one do i pick?" it does not matter.
I could choose to pick A, negate it, and throw it on the right side of the arrow.
Ex. ADP --> /A
Or I could choose ADP and do the same.
A --> /ADP
Finally, to get the contra positive you flip and negate
don't even think about which one is the sufficient/necessary condition. Just identify the two main subjects, you negate one of them, then whichever one you negate, make it either the sufficient condition or the necessary condition based on the identifier.
in this case, is the contra positive going to be the answer? because in the video the sentences he translated were not the contra positives like they did in group 3.
I remember this by: The "No" Group
All of group 4 words, even if they don't contain the word no, essentially mean no.
-NO
-NOne
-NOt Both
-CanNOt
-Never
(Never doesn't work as well for the mnemonic but it is fine)
This one is more confusing to me than Group 3. For Negate Necessary, are both statements (ADP → /A and A → /ADP) correct? Versus Negate Sufficient, where only one is correct?
@ShanR Negate sufficient both ideas are correct as well. Remember that one idea is the contrapositive of the other one. the last example in negate sufficient was just to explain how we can read the sentence wrong if we don't do this analysis.
'Never' is missing from this list
I don't get how you can just pick any idea and choose if it's going to be the sufficient or necessary condition. Shouldn't we understand what the sentence is trying to say too?
@iwillcrushthelsat no because the point of the test is to see how good you are at pattern recognition.
law schools don't care how much you know about, for example, how the weather is affected by one thing or another.
@iwillcrushthelsat Yes. Your intuition is right. I tried to actually understand the logic before relying on indicators. I have done it this past week and it has helped a lot. It is disappointing 7Sage doesnt stress this. You should definitely do it because this isn't just about getting it memorized-we are dealing with a logic based test so you need to actually understand it.
@iwillcrushthelsat Yes, you should try to understand the sentence always. Knowledge of conditional indicators can be helpful in getting to the right understanding of a sentence or in seeing alternate ways to express the same idea. Take, "unless."
"Unless you finish your vegetables, you won't get dessert."
Many people interpret this incorrectly as "If you finish your vegetables, then you'll get dessert." If you tell them to just use their intuition or think about the meaning of the sentence, they'll often get it wrong. Here, knowledge of how to translate "unless" statements is helpful in getting to the right understanding.
Quick question here: In the example wouldn't the translation be "if one is one of the Americans, then etc" OR "if one attended the dictator's party then one is not one of the Americans"?? I know this is small but presumably, there could be a group of Americans that the example is not referring to. Rather it is referring to some group of "the Americans" that according to the author could not include the broad group of all Americans. Am I right about this?
#help
#feedback I think you might be missing never in your list of indicators.
I agree; in Version 1, I recall "never" being one of the indicators for Group 3!
I read it as /A --> ADP (No Americans attended Dictator's party)
The contrapositive would then be /ADP --> A (If you did not attend dictator's party, you are american)... Is this alright?
No, this is falling for the oldest trick in the book. Your lawgic is saying, "If you're not American, you attended the dictator's party." Maybe the Finnish didn't go either, or the Cambodians. With your contrapositive, then, it's saying, "If you didn't attend the dictator's party then you're American." So, again, that's not necessarily true. Finnish people didn't attend either.
ADP → /A means, basically, "If you were in attendance at the dictator's party, then you're not an American. Its contrapositive, will, of course, say the same thing. A → /ADP, "If you're an American then you were not in attendance at the dictator's party."
Should it be "If one attended the dictator's party, then one is not an American." instead of "If attended the dictator's party, then one is not an American."?
#help (added by Admin)
I think so. Another way to think about it is:
"If X did not attend the party, then X is not American"
I find that as an easier and more versatile than "one" as you can apply it to anything and not just a person.
I started doing it this way and it's really helpful. Thank you!
lawdaddy420
I was going to originally ask if "/A->ADP" would work as well but I'm starting to get that it would be confusing sufficency and necessity. I think I'm starting to catch on.
Here we discuss the GROUP 4 indicators, which involve negative one of the ideas before making it the necessary condition. Group 4 indicators are: →
NO
NONE
NOT BOTH
CANNOT
Translation Rule: “pick either idea, negate that idea, then make that idea the necessary condition. The other idea from GROUP 3 falls into the place of a sufficient condition.”
EXAMPLE #1: “None of the Americans attended the dictator’s party.”
Step 1 Identify the Initial Indicator: → here is the word “none” that's group 4.
Step 2 Identify the two main concepts: → main concept (subject) none of the Americans other concept (predicate) attended the dictator’s party.
Step 3 Assign symbols to the two main concepts: → American (A) and use (ADP) for attending the dictator’s party.
Step 4 Apply the translation rule: (ADP) → (/A)
→ (/ADP)
Translating this new form back into English: “If one is an American, then one did not attend the dictator’s party.” and the other translation looks like this → “If one attended the dictator’s party, then one is not an American.”
As several have pointed out, “never” was excluded from the video as a negate necessary indicator word. What was the rationale?