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
Does this mean everyone who studied got an A? No -- just that everyone who got an A studied. But, there could have been many people who studied who did not get an A. So here, "the only" introduces the "if" part of the conditional:
Got an A --> Studied
"Only people who studied got an A."
This expresses the same relationship above. It's not saying everyone who studied got an A. It's saying studying was necessary for an A. Only people with that quality got an A. Here, "only" introduces what's necessary.
@Kevin_Lin Can't you just remove the "the" or add a "the" in each of your examples and get the same meaning? Still not seeing how adding "the" before "only" changes the entire meaning of the sentence compared to just "only"
@epayne17 "The only people who make over $50 million a year are pro athletes."
What's sufficient and necessary in that example? Is that saying everyone who makes over $50 mill a year is a pro athlete? Or that every pro athlete makes over $50 mill a year?
"Only people who are tall are good at basketball."
What's that saying? That everyone who is tall is good at basketball, or that everyone who is good at basketball is tall?
@Kevin_Lin Right, so removing "the", resulting in "Only people who make over $50M a year are pro athletes" has the exact same meaning than when you have "the" at the front....
@KevinLin Starting to feel like all these minor rules are just distracting to real questions. I end up taking far longer converting claims to lawgic than i would to just comprehend the passage normally.
What does this mean to you, in an if-then form? Can you translate this to an if-then form? (Don't try to see where I'm going with this -- I'm just curious about your intuitive understanding of this statement.)
"The only people who make over $50 million are pro athletes."
Thanks, we’ll put together something like this. Would you prefer the info in visual diagrams (like you’ve seen in the lessons) or in a chart (like in this lesson https://7sage.com/lesson/logical-reasoning-cheat-sheet/
I don't know if I have the authority to speak on this but the way I see it is never is similar to none & no, if you think about it!
For example in basketball terms: when watching consecutive game film on an opposing team, you notice that "none" or "no one" shoots corner threes the whole game, it's safe to say that they "never" shoot corner threes. So when you play them, you can infer that if the ball goes to the corner, they will "never" shoot it.
in corner -> /shoot
shoot -> /in corner
I hope this helps! (btw...this is very unlikely to actually happen in game! lol)
Hi there! It's the morning of my first LSAT and I came back to this lesson to review the 4 groups before heading off to my test. I saw your comment and thought I'd contribute my two cents: you don't need to necessarily memorize these indicators right now. As you move into LR and continue practicing conditional logic, you'll notice these indicators kind of become second nature to you. Some of them will stick immediately and they'll mostly be intuitive for you. You may struggle to remember others (hence why I'm reviewing this right now, "no" always makes me second-guess myself). The LSAT uses some of these indicators far more frequently than others (I'd say if, when, every, all, only, must, always, unless, and no are the most common). Refer back to this once in a while throughout LR and apply what you know, but don't stress about memorizing them fully right now. You'll understand them better once you see them in action :)
Question: so sufficient means that it is enough to be something, but it is not necessary. So sufficient means that it can mean something but it won’t always need to have it?
I saw someone comment this earlier and I put it in my notes because it was a good explanation.: "It always is sufficient on the left and necessary on the right.
sufficient → necessary
I always think of the example he used of cat → animal
Being a cat is sufficient to make you an animal (As in, if you are a cat you are automatically an animal) but it is not necessary to be an animal (because you don’t have to be a cat to be an animal, you can be a monkey or a horse etc.)
However, being an animal is necessary to be a cat because you cannot be a cat without being an animal." Hope this helps!
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.
92 comments
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).
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
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
I'm confused on how "the only" in group 1 differs from "only" in group 2. Does anyone have an example of how this works?
"The only people who got an A studied."
Does this mean everyone who studied got an A? No -- just that everyone who got an A studied. But, there could have been many people who studied who did not get an A. So here, "the only" introduces the "if" part of the conditional:
Got an A --> Studied
"Only people who studied got an A."
This expresses the same relationship above. It's not saying everyone who studied got an A. It's saying studying was necessary for an A. Only people with that quality got an A. Here, "only" introduces what's necessary.
"Got an A --> studied"
@Kevin_Lin Can't you just remove the "the" or add a "the" in each of your examples and get the same meaning? Still not seeing how adding "the" before "only" changes the entire meaning of the sentence compared to just "only"
@epayne17 "The only people who make over $50 million a year are pro athletes."
What's sufficient and necessary in that example? Is that saying everyone who makes over $50 mill a year is a pro athlete? Or that every pro athlete makes over $50 mill a year?
"Only people who are tall are good at basketball."
What's that saying? That everyone who is tall is good at basketball, or that everyone who is good at basketball is tall?
@Kevin_Lin Right, so removing "the", resulting in "Only people who make over $50M a year are pro athletes" has the exact same meaning than when you have "the" at the front....
@KevinLin Starting to feel like all these minor rules are just distracting to real questions. I end up taking far longer converting claims to lawgic than i would to just comprehend the passage normally.
@epayne17
What does this mean to you, in an if-then form? Can you translate this to an if-then form? (Don't try to see where I'm going with this -- I'm just curious about your intuitive understanding of this statement.)
"The only people who make over $50 million are pro athletes."
What about "no one?" Is that part of group 4 and how would you diagram it? I have some idea of how to do it, but I don't want to be wrong.
For example: No one sleeps in the library.
If you are a person (One) → /sleep in the library
sleep in the library → /One (personhood)
I guess there's an implication there that the "one" in "no one" refers to a particular subset of "someones". Is a mouse "one"?
Is it this or is it "if asleep, then not in library/ if in library, then not asleep"
[This comment was deleted.]
that would be amazing #feedback
#feedback
Has this been made yet?
Visual Diagrams please
I think both would be beneficial. I believe the charts can retain a bit more information than visual diagrams. Thanks ◡̈
I like the cheat sheet option. Where would we be able to locate this?
Thanks, we’ll put together something like this. Would you prefer the info in visual diagrams (like you’ve seen in the lessons) or in a chart (like in this lesson https://7sage.com/lesson/logical-reasoning-cheat-sheet/
@Kevin_Lin Cheat sheet is here! https://7sage.com/pages/free-lsat-resources-conditionals-cheat-sheet
love that comic.
Shouldn't never be listed as a logical indicator in group 4 (negate, necessary?)
I don't know if I have the authority to speak on this but the way I see it is never is similar to none & no, if you think about it!
For example in basketball terms: when watching consecutive game film on an opposing team, you notice that "none" or "no one" shoots corner threes the whole game, it's safe to say that they "never" shoot corner threes. So when you play them, you can infer that if the ball goes to the corner, they will "never" shoot it.
in corner -> /shoot
shoot -> /in corner
I hope this helps! (btw...this is very unlikely to actually happen in game! lol)
Anyone else struggling with remembering all of these?
Hi there! It's the morning of my first LSAT and I came back to this lesson to review the 4 groups before heading off to my test. I saw your comment and thought I'd contribute my two cents: you don't need to necessarily memorize these indicators right now. As you move into LR and continue practicing conditional logic, you'll notice these indicators kind of become second nature to you. Some of them will stick immediately and they'll mostly be intuitive for you. You may struggle to remember others (hence why I'm reviewing this right now, "no" always makes me second-guess myself). The LSAT uses some of these indicators far more frequently than others (I'd say if, when, every, all, only, must, always, unless, and no are the most common). Refer back to this once in a while throughout LR and apply what you know, but don't stress about memorizing them fully right now. You'll understand them better once you see them in action :)
Question: so sufficient means that it is enough to be something, but it is not necessary. So sufficient means that it can mean something but it won’t always need to have it?
I saw someone comment this earlier and I put it in my notes because it was a good explanation.: "It always is sufficient on the left and necessary on the right.
sufficient → necessary
I always think of the example he used of cat → animal
Being a cat is sufficient to make you an animal (As in, if you are a cat you are automatically an animal) but it is not necessary to be an animal (because you don’t have to be a cat to be an animal, you can be a monkey or a horse etc.)
However, being an animal is necessary to be a cat because you cannot be a cat without being an animal." Hope this helps!
@kaitlynehahn100 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.