@pbahoura You got it ! The order isn't so important here since both options are saying the same thing just flipped. Helps me to think about this as an "OR operation".
good thing to note that on less obvious clauses that the subject is one point and the predicate which includes that verb is the other. def tripped me up on 5 but got it regardless! its getting better.
Why not include the word "never" in the group 4 indicator list if it is used in 2/5 times in the follow-up examples? I find it to be rather frustrating - after being told to "look for these indicator words" - that almost half don't even use said indicator words lol.
@draikavu I see your point but I think @MeikeJourdain is right. What needs to happen in your brain is and understanding of the meaning of the logic itself. If you can only grasp applying a set of rules, you may misunderstand what a premise (myb. conclusion) means.
@RubiOrellana No, you won't have a negation on the sufficient condition side. You might be adding the negation because of the "no" before holiday, but this "no" does not = negate because "no" is the conditional indicator.
for #5 when you negate the idea shouldnt it just be app rather than /app because it says "none can be applied" so the negation would be that it can be applied. At least that's what my thought process was.
@Arsalan06 I am also confused by this. For question 5, I applied that same logic and wrote /A , since it says none of the tech advances, and negated the second claim (/App) and was left with /A---> /App. Once i read it out loud, "if (some?) recent tech advances, then it (tech advances) can be applied to producing power at traditional plants.
However, the claim is saying that NONE of them (which I'm assuming removes the inclusive component that could imply some tech advances are present). So, it's an incorrect translation. Perhaps I'm focusing on the "technicality" of the translation a bit too much, but it's intentional—I want to avoid using my intuition and learn how to apply the translations in a way that will help me save time.
I would really appreciate some feedback! I feel like I'm overcomplicating this, but I want to avoid missing a detail that could hinder my progress.
@HWalls2027 LR will of course be much harder. Key is to drill these so that you can intuitively understand them and know how to attack them with enough practice. These are foundational for LR questions, so drills like this are definitely worthwhile to do.
@HWalls2027 Some of the LR stims are really convoluted. Understanding the basics of how to break some of these statements down will definitely help. Especially on the Science questions 😵💫 and RC sections. You’ll be able to sift the important information from the fluff.
5/5 oh my god it is finally clicking; my every brain keeps kicking in halfway through while my lsat brain is processing things and ive gotten better at turning that part off and staying true to what i am learning
It all has to do with the meaning of the indicators themselves, and what they imply. The difference is highly important because for example, if you were to say "I will not shower unless I eat something first", and you correctly negated the sufficient, you would get the answer:
Shower --> Eat something first
/Eat something first --> /Shower
If I tried to negate the necessary instead, I would end up with the following:
/Shower --> /Eat something first
Eat something first --> Shower
As you can see, mistakenly applying the wrong rules gets you results that confuse the sufficient for the necessary. It entirely hinges on the word 'unless'.
In my example, "I will not shower unless I eat something first", I can rephrase it in my mind to say:
If I do not eat something first, then I will not take a shower. OR I will take a shower only if I eat something first.
As you can see, this is the same as our correct translations from above, where we negated the sufficient.
It would not make sense to try to rephrase it to say something like,
If I eat something first, I will take a shower.
For all we know, I could eat something and still chose to not take a shower. But we know for a fact that if I do shower, then I did eat something first.
In one of our examples from this lesson, "Lazy cats never develop heart disease",
I can rephrase it in my mind to mean "If I am a lazy cat then I will not develop heart disease", "All lazy cats do not develop heart disease", etc.
As you can see, I am negating the necessary when I am rephrasing this in my mind, and this is entirely because of what the word 'never' is implying in the sentence.
I notice for Q2 in the contrapositive, "within august--/holiday", neither part has parenthesis, when the other problems do? Can someone explain this? Some problems have them while others don't?
256 comments
It's starting to click but for whatever reason i got 2 and 3 backwards
i had put within August -> /holiday and then H->/Aug
same thing for number 3
is that an issue? any idea why im gettin tripped up like that?
@pbahoura You got it ! The order isn't so important here since both options are saying the same thing just flipped. Helps me to think about this as an "OR operation".
A or H
-A
Therefore H
Or,
A or H
-H
Therefore A
If August -> Not holiday
A -> -H
If holiday -> Not August
H -> -A
Wow, that was surprisingly easy.
5/5!!!
"never" was not listed in the group 4 list in the lesson. So I got tripped up when it appeared in practice
@Marlowsteed I think the easiest way to identify Group 4 is any word that is a straight up "no" or a word that indicates that something cannot happen.
YUP 5/5
5/5
5/5!! I think I had a way easier time with this than with group 3
5/5 HOLY
5/5!!!
5/5, it's slowly clicking together!! :)
good thing to note that on less obvious clauses that the subject is one point and the predicate which includes that verb is the other. def tripped me up on 5 but got it regardless! its getting better.
Why not include the word "never" in the group 4 indicator list if it is used in 2/5 times in the follow-up examples? I find it to be rather frustrating - after being told to "look for these indicator words" - that almost half don't even use said indicator words lol.
@draikavu helps you practice the fact that these lists are both under and over inclusive
@draikavu I see your point but I think @MeikeJourdain is right. What needs to happen in your brain is and understanding of the meaning of the logic itself. If you can only grasp applying a set of rules, you may misunderstand what a premise (myb. conclusion) means.
Hi guys! I actually had a question. so for "No holiday falls within the month of August" would this answer also be correct or no?
No holiday falls within the month of August.
/holiday -> month of august
/month of august -> holiday
@RubiOrellana No, you won't have a negation on the sufficient condition side. You might be adding the negation because of the "no" before holiday, but this "no" does not = negate because "no" is the conditional indicator.
the trick I'm using is anything after the indicator will be the negation (necessary condition).
5/5 at last
For #1, does it matter if I did it like this:
develop heart disease → /(lazy cat)
lazy cat → /(develop heart disease)
Confused because don't want to mess it up due to the contrapositive.
@JashanpreetMalhi This is logically correct
5/5 we're feeling great
These activities are becoming slightly fun!
for #5 when you negate the idea shouldnt it just be app rather than /app because it says "none can be applied" so the negation would be that it can be applied. At least that's what my thought process was.
@Arsalan06 I am also confused by this. For question 5, I applied that same logic and wrote /A , since it says none of the tech advances, and negated the second claim (/App) and was left with /A---> /App. Once i read it out loud, "if (some?) recent tech advances, then it (tech advances) can be applied to producing power at traditional plants.
However, the claim is saying that NONE of them (which I'm assuming removes the inclusive component that could imply some tech advances are present). So, it's an incorrect translation. Perhaps I'm focusing on the "technicality" of the translation a bit too much, but it's intentional—I want to avoid using my intuition and learn how to apply the translations in a way that will help me save time.
I would really appreciate some feedback! I feel like I'm overcomplicating this, but I want to avoid missing a detail that could hinder my progress.
5/5 It's pretty easy right now worried how it will translate to actual LR questions, anybody else ?
@HWalls2027 same i just don't get why this is important to it all
@HWalls2027 LR will of course be much harder. Key is to drill these so that you can intuitively understand them and know how to attack them with enough practice. These are foundational for LR questions, so drills like this are definitely worthwhile to do.
@HWalls2027 Some of the LR stims are really convoluted. Understanding the basics of how to break some of these statements down will definitely help. Especially on the Science questions 😵💫 and RC sections. You’ll be able to sift the important information from the fluff.
5/5 - question 1 almost had me, but I caught myself thinking, it doesn't need to make sense it just needs to follow the formula.
5/5 oh my god it is finally clicking; my every brain keeps kicking in halfway through while my lsat brain is processing things and ive gotten better at turning that part off and staying true to what i am learning
For whatever reason, I have been writing the contrapositive first when turning them into logic. I wonder why.
Can someone explain the difference between negate sufficient and negate necessary? They seem very similar to me :/
@MGonz6
It all has to do with the meaning of the indicators themselves, and what they imply. The difference is highly important because for example, if you were to say "I will not shower unless I eat something first", and you correctly negated the sufficient, you would get the answer:
Shower --> Eat something first
/Eat something first --> /Shower
If I tried to negate the necessary instead, I would end up with the following:
/Shower --> /Eat something first
Eat something first --> Shower
As you can see, mistakenly applying the wrong rules gets you results that confuse the sufficient for the necessary. It entirely hinges on the word 'unless'.
In my example, "I will not shower unless I eat something first", I can rephrase it in my mind to say:
If I do not eat something first, then I will not take a shower. OR I will take a shower only if I eat something first.
As you can see, this is the same as our correct translations from above, where we negated the sufficient.
It would not make sense to try to rephrase it to say something like,
If I eat something first, I will take a shower.
For all we know, I could eat something and still chose to not take a shower. But we know for a fact that if I do shower, then I did eat something first.
In one of our examples from this lesson, "Lazy cats never develop heart disease",
I can rephrase it in my mind to mean "If I am a lazy cat then I will not develop heart disease", "All lazy cats do not develop heart disease", etc.
As you can see, I am negating the necessary when I am rephrasing this in my mind, and this is entirely because of what the word 'never' is implying in the sentence.
I hope this helps!
I notice for Q2 in the contrapositive, "within august--/holiday", neither part has parenthesis, when the other problems do? Can someone explain this? Some problems have them while others don't?
@ShinyLoser I believe that the parenthesis is only necessary when there is more than one word that is being negated