I still don't understand how you figure out which condition is necessary and which is sufficient when you have your two statements. Can someone explain?
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??
@BrieV 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.
earlier in the lesson, I remember for Group 4 indicators use the Subject as sufficient condition and negate the rest (predicate) and place it at a necessary condition. Does this translation rule still applicable?
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.
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.
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.”
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?
@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 see how the words for group 3 need at least two clauses, and words of group 4 can start with one clause. Am I right?? Would this be a right way to understand this
@Daisy228 Kind of -- "no" and "none" typically are used at the beginning of a sentence when used in a conditional way. "No snakes are cute." But there are still 2 parts of the sentence -- "snakes" and "are cute":
@JamesVartian Yes! Sufficient is always on the left and necessary is on the right. It's a silly mnemonic but the way I remember sufficient/necessary and the contrapositive is SNOT: Sufficient → Necessary, Opposite → Transpose
I've studied for the LSAT on and off for literal years and always struggled with this concept because I was initially taught a "no torpedo" method (iykyk). This method is GOLD!! So simple and easy.
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?
@ktacklesthelsat 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.
@ktacklesthelsat 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.
105 comments
I still don't understand how you figure out which condition is necessary and which is sufficient when you have your two statements. Can someone explain?
lawdaddy420
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??
@BrieV 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.
earlier in the lesson, I remember for Group 4 indicators use the Subject as sufficient condition and negate the rest (predicate) and place it at a necessary condition. Does this translation rule still applicable?
These explanations are so much more easier than what they do in Kaplan books 😭🙏
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.
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!
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.
isnt if a indicator word for sufficient then why are we putting in the sentence for negate necessary
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?
what about
"No students are unhappy unless they fail?"
@Isabel.C I think it would be /fail -> /unhappy or unhappy -> fail
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
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
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.
What if the thing you negate is already negative? Do you just positive it?
@AliGoldberg Yes. "No birds cannot fly."
Bird --> CAN fly
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)
Just had a quick question. Might be a stupid one
I see how the words for group 3 need at least two clauses, and words of group 4 can start with one clause. Am I right?? Would this be a right way to understand this
@Daisy228 Kind of -- "no" and "none" typically are used at the beginning of a sentence when used in a conditional way. "No snakes are cute." But there are still 2 parts of the sentence -- "snakes" and "are cute":
Snake --> NOT cute
#J.Y. Feedback.
You should have said 'never' in your original video, monkey.
(-_-)
'Never' is missing from this list
So if my subject of choice is on the right side of the arrow it is necessary, and on the left side it is sufficient?
A --> B (A is sufficient)
B --> A (A is necessary)
This right?
@JamesVartian Yes! Sufficient is always on the left and necessary is on the right. It's a silly mnemonic but the way I remember sufficient/necessary and the contrapositive is SNOT: Sufficient → Necessary, Opposite → Transpose
I've studied for the LSAT on and off for literal years and always struggled with this concept because I was initially taught a "no torpedo" method (iykyk). This method is GOLD!! So simple and easy.
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?
@ktacklesthelsat 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.
@ktacklesthelsat 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.
@ktacklesthelsat 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.
Group 4 logical indicators: no, none, not both, cannot
Group 4 rule: You pick either idea, then negate that idea, then make that idea the necessary condition.
If I did it like:
Idea 1: American attended
Idea 2: Dictator's party
Negate Idea 1 and make it "necessary": dictator's party -> /American attended
Translate to English: If it's a dictator's party, then no American attended
Would this still be correct? I think I messed up at breaking up the predicate?