"never" isn't listed in group 4! I figured it out but just calling attention to that. I don't know if it can be used as a rule, but until I realized it was just omitted, I assumed we had to translate "never" to "no" and put it at the beginning of the sentence. "Lazy cats never develop heart disease" becomes "no lazy cats develop heart disease"
Im so lost what is the difference between group 3 and 4 if it doesn't matter which side you choose. technically you are doing the exact same thing just you decide which is going to be sufficient or necessary based on which idea you choose?
@lsatdiva12345 Remember that the rules aren't any fundamental information about the logic, they're just shortcuts that help you jot down a lawgic implication correctly when you see one of the logical indicator words. The point of the rules is that in group 3 the sufficient condition is negated, and in group 4 the necessary condition is negated. Maybe it would be a good illustration if you built your own implications in the group-3 and group-4 patterns (/A -> B, and A -> /B), and then translated them into English. You will likely find that the words you need to use for the group 3 pattern are words like or, unless, until, without, and that you'll need no, none, not both, cannot for group 4.
@lsatdiva12345 Said differently, the logical notions built into the group 3 and group 4 rules are descriptions of how English uses these sets of logical indicator words (at least in the context of LSAT questions).
I'm still confused with the order on some of these. For the most part it seems the first clause is on the left side of the arrow, but some aren't like that and make less sense to me.
@MeganHek I know you are likely past needing this but for anyone else I put the ways that I remember the words lists in the comments on the first page for each group. Hopefully it will help someone.
The thing that made this click was breaking this down to form and indicators. You can put anything in the sentence but if I have my indicator and can decipher whats being conditioned for the other, it'll work 99% of the time.
i think i need much more fleshed out definitions of what a sufficient relationship and a necessary relationship are with some examples. Can't seem to wrap my head around the concepts and fully grasp them within the real world.
@MPFerrari Hey, I might be a little late but something that I think helps me out a lot is "if x then y" x is sufficient and y is necessary. X is enough to satisfy Y but Y is required to make X true. Does this make sense?
Ex: If I am in Chicago, I am in Illinois.
Chicago is the sufficient here. It guarantees that I'm in Illinois (my Y) because Chicago is a city within Illinois.
Illinois cannot be the sufficient in this case. Just because I am in Illinois doesn't guarantee that I am in Chicago. Chicago only makes up lets say <1% of Illinois total ground. I could theoretically be in Champaign. (At the University of Illinois)
Does this make sense?
Here is another example that could help:
If I drink redbull then I will grow wings.
Sufficient: drinking redbull
Why? Drinking redbull is sufficient to make you grow wings.
But I cannot say growing wings is sufficient or enough to be drinking redbull.
Why? Because what if I somehow mutated. Died and became an angel? There are endless possibilities that are not listed.
Sufficient: enough to guarantee.
Necessary: must be true for outcome to be possible
105 comments
i had to stop thinking about is as the 'choose whichever one' advice and instead make the rules:
'unless, without, or, until' = treat as introducing a necessary condition with a negated sufficient condition (/A --> B)
'no, none, not both, cannot' = treat as introducing a sufficient condition with a negated necessary condition (A --> /B)
this helped me figure it out a lot. maybe i just need more structure than 'pick either one' hahaha
"never" isn't listed in group 4! I figured it out but just calling attention to that. I don't know if it can be used as a rule, but until I realized it was just omitted, I assumed we had to translate "never" to "no" and put it at the beginning of the sentence. "Lazy cats never develop heart disease" becomes "no lazy cats develop heart disease"
lawdaddy420
@lawdaddy420 many people are saying this!
Memorizing this will not be fun, but I hope it's worth it
"never" is part of the necessity group 2 right? or is it negate necessity?
@themoodyactivist its negate necessary condition. the page right before this (group 4 translations) has an example.
@am4ndapanda TY!!!!
"only" in group 2 vs "the only" in group 1 is cruel and unusual
Hey! Any chance you can make these diagrams downloadable?
Im so lost what is the difference between group 3 and 4 if it doesn't matter which side you choose. technically you are doing the exact same thing just you decide which is going to be sufficient or necessary based on which idea you choose?
@lsatdiva12345 Remember that the rules aren't any fundamental information about the logic, they're just shortcuts that help you jot down a lawgic implication correctly when you see one of the logical indicator words. The point of the rules is that in group 3 the sufficient condition is negated, and in group 4 the necessary condition is negated. Maybe it would be a good illustration if you built your own implications in the group-3 and group-4 patterns (/A -> B, and A -> /B), and then translated them into English. You will likely find that the words you need to use for the group 3 pattern are words like or, unless, until, without, and that you'll need no, none, not both, cannot for group 4.
@lsatdiva12345 Said differently, the logical notions built into the group 3 and group 4 rules are descriptions of how English uses these sets of logical indicator words (at least in the context of LSAT questions).
@lsatdiva12345 i had to stop thinking about is as the 'choose whichever one' advice and instead make the rules:
'unless, without, or, until' = treat as introducing a necessary condition with a negated sufficient condition (/A --> B)
'no, none, not both, cannot' = treat as introducing a sufficient condition with a negated necessary condition (A --> /B)
Whats the concept behind "never"? Its not listed on the diagram as an indicator but was used in an example
@Kerington43 never is a group 4 negate, necessary indicator that functions the same as cannot.
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 you are so lit for this. thank you!!
@HiGigi 🔥 no problem
I'm back reviewing these after getting one shotted by MBT questions
I'm still confused with the order on some of these. For the most part it seems the first clause is on the left side of the arrow, but some aren't like that and make less sense to me.
@AddisonBass Arrow doesn't point from first clause to second clause, it points from subset (sufficient condition) to superset (necessary condition).
what is the formula for a sufficient v a necessary condition?
If you don't read the comic, you're missing out.
@fjnathaniel /(reading the comic) -> missing out lol
It would be great if the diagram had one example for each group. #feedback
Lowkey this one was really confusing :/
We should use examples from passages. #Feedback
@LeonardoFernandez I assume they are coming ahead lol
Does anyone have any tips on how to remember which words go with what group?
@MeganHek I know you are likely past needing this but for anyone else I put the ways that I remember the words lists in the comments on the first page for each group. Hopefully it will help someone.
The thing that made this click was breaking this down to form and indicators. You can put anything in the sentence but if I have my indicator and can decipher whats being conditioned for the other, it'll work 99% of the time.
For Group 3 and 4, does the 'other' idea remain untouched? what is the point of finding the contrapositive then?
@anjjredd answers on tests can be contrapositives
hence, why its important to breakdown and understand them
i think i need much more fleshed out definitions of what a sufficient relationship and a necessary relationship are with some examples. Can't seem to wrap my head around the concepts and fully grasp them within the real world.
@MPFerrari Hey, I might be a little late but something that I think helps me out a lot is "if x then y" x is sufficient and y is necessary. X is enough to satisfy Y but Y is required to make X true. Does this make sense?
Ex: If I am in Chicago, I am in Illinois.
Chicago is the sufficient here. It guarantees that I'm in Illinois (my Y) because Chicago is a city within Illinois.
Illinois cannot be the sufficient in this case. Just because I am in Illinois doesn't guarantee that I am in Chicago. Chicago only makes up lets say <1% of Illinois total ground. I could theoretically be in Champaign. (At the University of Illinois)
Does this make sense?
Here is another example that could help:
If I drink redbull then I will grow wings.
Sufficient: drinking redbull
Why? Drinking redbull is sufficient to make you grow wings.
But I cannot say growing wings is sufficient or enough to be drinking redbull.
Why? Because what if I somehow mutated. Died and became an angel? There are endless possibilities that are not listed.
Sufficient: enough to guarantee.
Necessary: must be true for outcome to be possible
I think it means it is sufficient to make the conclusion true...
like if I am in Austin, then I am in Texas.
Austin is sufficient to guarantee that I'm in Texas.
but Texas does not guarantee I'm in Austin.
but if I am in Austin then it is also necessarily true that I am also in Texas.
he should include examples.
#feedback
hell yeah
I don't understand the comic
@abboshap560 subsets and supersets. girlfriends are a subset of the superset, the world. if there is no world, there can be no girlfriends.
@nml
If GF then W
/W then /GF?
@AbeShapiro yes i think so!!!! lol