To own a dog one must have responsibility. If you have responsibility you must be intelligent, Which further requires a desire. Therefore, if you want to own a dog you must have a desire. OAD->R->I->D. OAD->D. I know there are plenty of flawed assumptions here.
what settings have you all been using when creating drills? Unsure of where to even begin when it comes to drilling to enamel sure I’m understanding everything.
To be a Jedi, one must be a Force user. Becoming a Force user requires years of training, which further requires extraordinary discipline. Therefore, one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline.
The conclusion has the Group 3 indicator word. What do we do with the translation rules then?
Since for the solution J --> F --> T --> D is J -->D we did not use the Group 3 translation. It just mapped it out.
Guys why is "To be a Jedi, one must be a Force user." a conditional statement, when there isn't a conditional indicator. I get it is conditional, but their teaching us to rely on the indicator to know which group it is.
What I do not understand is how exactly the negate sufficient rule is being applied in the conclusion, because to me it seems incorrect. Since there is an unless in the why is the conclusion not /J →D or /D→J. Is it because the cannot is in front of the Jedi so it makes it /J→/D. This part is confusing for, can someone please explain.
This became a little more convoluted for me. Combining the previously learned topics (trying to use the conditional indicators to implement Lawgic) with the chaining gets pretty confusing for me.
I needed to slow this down to make sure that I was following.
So Im trying to understand this lesson within the framework that has been set out for us
We learned that there is two types of logic:
(i) formal logic
(ii) informal logic
We said formal logic contains:
(i) conditional logic -- sufficient and necessary conditions
(ii) Logic of sets -- sets, supersets, subsets, membership and intersecting sets
Now, the way we are referencing back is by the kind of argument we learned. this lesson starts off by saying we are about to learn the third kind of argument within formal logic. It states that so far we learned:
1) necessary conditions arguments
2) contrastive arguments
3) Chaining conditionals argument
I guess where I am getting a bit mixed up is why we said formal logic contains two types of logic and then went on to list three different arguments. I am trying to figure out which argument fits within which kind of logic, but writing this out made me realize that its not that there are two categories of logic within formal logic and that all arguments fit within one of the two, but rather, that there are two forms of logical reasoning that formal logic is composed of and all the kinds of arguments within formal logic make use of this reasoning.
Is this accurate? if anyone has comments, please let me know.
Did anyone else catch the fact that the last example, the conclusion had two different conditional indicator "Cannot" and "Unless", which are part of two DIFFERENT indicator groups. So what would you do in this situation?
Should I treat the middle link as a sub-conclusion? My reasoning follows this logic: A provides support for B, B in itself receives support from A but also includes support for C. Am I wrong in my reasoning?
Can someone explain to me again why "since" would mean that the statement to the right is to be first? (in the example since meant that C --> M, not C --> A --> M
#help This has been explained a couple of times, but I still cannot seem to wrap my brain around it. For the sentence, "Therefore, one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline.", I know I must follow the translation rule of group 3 because of the word "unless". However, I do not seem to be practicing the correct lawgic.
I keep doing: "If not become jedi, then possess extraordinary discipline" (negating the sufficient). I know this is incorrect but unsure why I am doing the lawgic incorrectly. Should I be saying "If not cannot become jedi, then possess extraordinary discipline"? Would really appreciate some help!
It just clicked... to be a Jedi, one must possess extraordinary discipline..... is this example all code for becoming a lawyer, J.Y.? hahaha
4
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
82 comments
I think you guys all know this but I have to ask.
Should I treat what comes after "requires" the same as "necessary"?
To own a dog one must have responsibility. If you have responsibility you must be intelligent, Which further requires a desire. Therefore, if you want to own a dog you must have a desire. OAD->R->I->D. OAD->D. I know there are plenty of flawed assumptions here.
At 3:27 of the video, does the unless sentence is one cannot become a jedi equal to /J, and then the group 3 indicate flipped it to J --> D?
what settings have you all been using when creating drills? Unsure of where to even begin when it comes to drilling to enamel sure I’m understanding everything.
another way to think about it:
most x are y
all y are z
thus, most x are z
x -> y -> z
same thing, but this just works better in my head. from Ethan Sterling's lsat book
To be a Jedi, one must be a Force user. Becoming a Force user requires years of training, which further requires extraordinary discipline. Therefore, one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline.
The conclusion has the Group 3 indicator word. What do we do with the translation rules then?
Since for the solution J --> F --> T --> D is J -->D we did not use the Group 3 translation. It just mapped it out.
Guys why is "To be a Jedi, one must be a Force user." a conditional statement, when there isn't a conditional indicator. I get it is conditional, but their teaching us to rely on the indicator to know which group it is.
/feedback For the Jedi argument, break down the lawgic sentence by sentence. Currently, it jumps right to the solution
Is anyone super lost this far in or is it just me lmao
Is "requires" a conditional indicator?
#feedback
What I do not understand is how exactly the negate sufficient rule is being applied in the conclusion, because to me it seems incorrect. Since there is an unless in the why is the conclusion not /J →D or /D→J. Is it because the cannot is in front of the Jedi so it makes it /J→/D. This part is confusing for, can someone please explain.
Can you comment and give feedback if this is a valid argument for this type of formal argument chaining A -> B -> C
If i want to drink water, then I will go to water station only when I feel thirsty. Therefore, I will drink water requires the state of thirstiness.
A - Drink water
B - Water Station
C - Feel thirsty
This became a little more convoluted for me. Combining the previously learned topics (trying to use the conditional indicators to implement Lawgic) with the chaining gets pretty confusing for me.
I needed to slow this down to make sure that I was following.
So Im trying to understand this lesson within the framework that has been set out for us
We learned that there is two types of logic:
(i) formal logic
(ii) informal logic
We said formal logic contains:
(i) conditional logic -- sufficient and necessary conditions
(ii) Logic of sets -- sets, supersets, subsets, membership and intersecting sets
Now, the way we are referencing back is by the kind of argument we learned. this lesson starts off by saying we are about to learn the third kind of argument within formal logic. It states that so far we learned:
1) necessary conditions arguments
2) contrastive arguments
3) Chaining conditionals argument
I guess where I am getting a bit mixed up is why we said formal logic contains two types of logic and then went on to list three different arguments. I am trying to figure out which argument fits within which kind of logic, but writing this out made me realize that its not that there are two categories of logic within formal logic and that all arguments fit within one of the two, but rather, that there are two forms of logical reasoning that formal logic is composed of and all the kinds of arguments within formal logic make use of this reasoning.
Is this accurate? if anyone has comments, please let me know.
Good luck studying everyone!
Did anyone else catch the fact that the last example, the conclusion had two different conditional indicator "Cannot" and "Unless", which are part of two DIFFERENT indicator groups. So what would you do in this situation?
Should I treat the middle link as a sub-conclusion? My reasoning follows this logic: A provides support for B, B in itself receives support from A but also includes support for C. Am I wrong in my reasoning?
Can someone explain to me again why "since" would mean that the statement to the right is to be first? (in the example since meant that C --> M, not C --> A --> M
This made more sense then separating between the groups and making the ideas sufficient/necessary lmao
#help This has been explained a couple of times, but I still cannot seem to wrap my brain around it. For the sentence, "Therefore, one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline.", I know I must follow the translation rule of group 3 because of the word "unless". However, I do not seem to be practicing the correct lawgic.
I keep doing: "If not become jedi, then possess extraordinary discipline" (negating the sufficient). I know this is incorrect but unsure why I am doing the lawgic incorrectly. Should I be saying "If not cannot become jedi, then possess extraordinary discipline"? Would really appreciate some help!
why cant I slow down this video?
The indicator “since” threw me off.
Can C become D, or B become C? Or is it about A being able to become any of the letters?
Is it safe to just skip this? I still remember what is called a hypothetical syllogism from my logic classes.
similar to the transitive property in math
It just clicked... to be a Jedi, one must possess extraordinary discipline..... is this example all code for becoming a lawyer, J.Y.? hahaha