I was always intimidated by sentences with multiple indicators, like the Jedi example, but I guess it was quite simple:
"One cannot become a Jedi (J) unless one possesses extraordinary discipline (D)"
cannot = Group 4
unless = Group 3
For Group 4 indicators, you pick one, put it into a necessary condition, and negate it. For Group 3, you pick one, put it into a sufficient condition, and negate it likewise. So:
cannot J, unless D
=
/D → /J
Contrapositive is: J → D
Hence the simple translation is:
"If one becomes a Jedi, one possesses extraordinary discipline"
So knowing this is quite convenient actually. Whenever we have a sentence that constructs like "Group 4 (X), Group 3 (Y)", it automatically translates to "X → Y"
e.g. "He cannot live in Texas, unless he is American"
Im confused, becuase in the jedi example in the conclusion they use both the words unless and cannot. Are we supposed to use the rules they just taught us for that and negate one side? or does it cancel out in this example cuz both sides would be negated?
you have to remember that those conditional indicators work MOST of the time. which is why JY sees it important to teach, as having direction to apply MOST of the time, is better than not having any at all. he warned us to be very wary of not depending too much on these clues.
we use the conditional indicator "unless" here instead of "cannot" because "unless" connects the two statements and allows them to show the sufficient and necessary relationship effectively.
*"Therefore, one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline."
*
if we applied the conditional lawgic rule to the word "cannot" (group 4 negate necessary) then our lawgic statement would go as follows:
step 1 Identify conditional indicator: "cannot"
step 2 Identify the two main concepts: "one" and "become a Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline"
do these two concepts make sense? do they accurately tell us the two main concepts being discussed in the sentence? not at all, which is why the conditional indicator "unless" separates the two ideas better and allows for a clearer approach.
if we applied the conditional lawgic rule to the word "unless" (group 3 negate sufficient) then our lawgic statement would go as follows:
step 1 Identify the conditional indicator: "unless"
step 2 Identify the two main concepts: "become a Jedi" and "Possess extraordinary discipline"
step 3 Assign symbols to the two main concepts: /BJ and PED (BJ is already negated because "cannot" is a negative connotation and it is not being used as a conditional indicator, therefore it can count towards a negation)
step 4 follow the translation rule for group 3, pick one of the ideas, negate it, and make it a sufficient condition.
BJ -> PED and /PED -> /BJ
step 5 translate back into English:
if one becomes a jedi, then one must possess extraordinary discipline.
if one does not possess extraordinary discipline, then one cannot become a jedi.
step 6: check to see that your English definitions line up with our original statement
I had the same question as the above user! Thank you for clarifying this. It was really helpful to be able to differentiate that the indicator words should be between two ideas versus just looking out for all indicator words!
@athmar390 Thank you! I was initially removing the "Cannot" from the variable before negating, and the resulting sentence didn't make sense. But now I get it, don't remove "cannot" unless it is the conditional indicator separating two ideas, which it isn't. Makes sense thank you! So Group 3 rules would apply, identifying "Unless" as the conditional indicator.
/(One Cannot Become Jedi) ---> Possesses Discipline
Translates into
One CAN become Jedi ---> Possess Discipline
or
/Possess Discipline ----> (One Cannot Become Jedi)
Question about the last example given for chaining conditionals. 'Therefore, one CANNOT become a jedi UNLESS one possesses extraordinary discipline.' This translates to /D ---> /J CP: J --> D. Granted, I understand how to get there, but I can think of /J --> /D CP: D --> J. Why can't it be the latter? The lessons on group #3 and #4 conditionals mention you can choose which idea you please on either the suf or nec side.
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?
You know what, I was really thinking about this after I made this comment. And I think that the work “cannot” is under inclusive in this premise! So it wouldn’t be identified as an indicator… Still working it out in my head lol :)
I know this example was being used to teach the third type of formal argument, but as was pointed out in the video, the main conclusion contains the negate sufficiency indicator word “unless”. So would it be appropriate and faster to apply the conditional indicator group 3 strategy instead?
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.
in application....since it says "unless" I will do the Group 3 technique... pick either idea, then negate that idea. then make the negated idea the sufficient condition. the other idea becomes the necessary condition. the two ideas are "DNBJ" (does not become a jedi) and "HED" (have extraordinary discipline). i will choose to negate DNBJ so it becomes /DNBJ (to note, it is a double negative and ultimately reads "negated does not become jedi" so it basically just means becomes jedi).
yes, i just worked this out on a sheet of paper and i think the operative detail is that it is about one not becoming a jedi. not just the state of being a jedi in itself.
so if you make it DNBJ (does not become jedi) rather than simply J (jedi), the math then works better.
for "one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline" I was super confused and only made sense through English rather than the rules. Until I realized I can use both rules it helped me out so im hoping this can help someone. For negating necessary (cannot) and negating sufficients (unless), we can do it both at the same time.
Jedi is the subject, Possesses extraordinary discipline is the predicate.
Negating Necessary is also known as subject -> /predicate
Negating Sufficients I do /subject -> predicate
Therefore, combining both would be /subject -> /predicate
I thought the same thing but I think it's only negate sufficient because cannot is used to be /J instead of an indicator so when made negated sufficient it's //J -> PED which makes it J-> PED
Second example All cats are animals since all cats are mammals, which are a subset of animals, does it make a difference which premise to start with? I did it in logic as following
108 comments
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
If X requires Y, then Y is a necessary condition.
If X is required by Y, then Y is a sufficient condition.
J --> F --> T --> D
Conclusion:
To be a Jedi requires extraordinary discipline.
J --> D. Valid argument.
still very much hate all the jedi examples. they are the bane of my existence
Good, good I can feel your anger
I was always intimidated by sentences with multiple indicators, like the Jedi example, but I guess it was quite simple:
"One cannot become a Jedi (J) unless one possesses extraordinary discipline (D)"
cannot = Group 4
unless = Group 3
For Group 4 indicators, you pick one, put it into a necessary condition, and negate it. For Group 3, you pick one, put it into a sufficient condition, and negate it likewise. So:
cannot J, unless D
=
/D → /J
Contrapositive is: J → D
Hence the simple translation is:
"If one becomes a Jedi, one possesses extraordinary discipline"
So knowing this is quite convenient actually. Whenever we have a sentence that constructs like "Group 4 (X), Group 3 (Y)", it automatically translates to "X → Y"
e.g. "He cannot live in Texas, unless he is American"
= "If he lives in Texas, he is American"
@kazuhiro35 i did not pick up on the Group 4 indicator, not having really practiced it. Your explanation is stellar.
"Becoming a Force user requires years of training."
Rey: hold my Lawgic. iykyk
@yesterdayseeker you cooked
I try not to depend on chaining because you do not have the luxury of time on this test...
Hey! Before you move on make sure to understand the sufficient and necessary and the indicator words thoroughly!
how do we do this in our head quickly though? during the lsat we don't have much time to write this down.
@SilviaOfori drill for ur life
Where do you get the drills or practice problems related to these lessons?
@HudsonDuff lawhub but i think u can also drill on 7sage according to topic
Im confused, becuase in the jedi example in the conclusion they use both the words unless and cannot. Are we supposed to use the rules they just taught us for that and negate one side? or does it cancel out in this example cuz both sides would be negated?
you have to remember that those conditional indicators work MOST of the time. which is why JY sees it important to teach, as having direction to apply MOST of the time, is better than not having any at all. he warned us to be very wary of not depending too much on these clues.
we use the conditional indicator "unless" here instead of "cannot" because "unless" connects the two statements and allows them to show the sufficient and necessary relationship effectively.
*"Therefore, one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline."
*
if we applied the conditional lawgic rule to the word "cannot" (group 4 negate necessary) then our lawgic statement would go as follows:
step 1 Identify conditional indicator: "cannot"
step 2 Identify the two main concepts: "one" and "become a Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline"
do these two concepts make sense? do they accurately tell us the two main concepts being discussed in the sentence? not at all, which is why the conditional indicator "unless" separates the two ideas better and allows for a clearer approach.
if we applied the conditional lawgic rule to the word "unless" (group 3 negate sufficient) then our lawgic statement would go as follows:
step 1 Identify the conditional indicator: "unless"
step 2 Identify the two main concepts: "become a Jedi" and "Possess extraordinary discipline"
step 3 Assign symbols to the two main concepts: /BJ and PED (BJ is already negated because "cannot" is a negative connotation and it is not being used as a conditional indicator, therefore it can count towards a negation)
step 4 follow the translation rule for group 3, pick one of the ideas, negate it, and make it a sufficient condition.
BJ -> PED and /PED -> /BJ
step 5 translate back into English:
if one becomes a jedi, then one must possess extraordinary discipline.
if one does not possess extraordinary discipline, then one cannot become a jedi.
step 6: check to see that your English definitions line up with our original statement
hopefully, this makes a little more sense!
So would ED be the Necessary condition in this example?
THANK YOU!! This was so helpful.
I had the same question as the above user! Thank you for clarifying this. It was really helpful to be able to differentiate that the indicator words should be between two ideas versus just looking out for all indicator words!
You are so welcome!! Happy to hear this helped :)
@athmar390 Thank you! I was initially removing the "Cannot" from the variable before negating, and the resulting sentence didn't make sense. But now I get it, don't remove "cannot" unless it is the conditional indicator separating two ideas, which it isn't. Makes sense thank you! So Group 3 rules would apply, identifying "Unless" as the conditional indicator.
/(One Cannot Become Jedi) ---> Possesses Discipline
Translates into
One CAN become Jedi ---> Possess Discipline
or
/Possess Discipline ----> (One Cannot Become Jedi)
Thank you!
Question about the last example given for chaining conditionals. 'Therefore, one CANNOT become a jedi UNLESS one possesses extraordinary discipline.' This translates to /D ---> /J CP: J --> D. Granted, I understand how to get there, but I can think of /J --> /D CP: D --> J. Why can't it be the latter? The lessons on group #3 and #4 conditionals mention you can choose which idea you please on either the suf or nec side.
C: Fear is the path to the dark side
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
F -> A -> H -> S
Invalid argument. Assumption = Suffering -> Dark Side.
i lowk feel like i now have to rewatch twenty videos and re do five exercises after ts because what
@izzy5576 Literally
bc there is the unless indicator, should we not do
J->F->T->D
conclusion: J->D
~D-> J?
did i get that right? because it's the lesson from group 3 indicators right?
It just clicked... to be a Jedi, one must possess extraordinary discipline..... is this example all code for becoming a lawyer, J.Y.? hahaha
brotha help me
@mnv449
If A then B
If B then C
If A happens, then B also happens
If B happens, then C happens
And because A was the cause of B, and B leads to C, then ultimately if A then C
In the last sentence, we see both cannot and unless, but it basically translates to the same whether you use Group 3 or Group 4 I think
Is anyone super lost this far in or is it just me lmao
Just slow down and do some practice to see if you get it.
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?
I think this is correct!
"Cannot become a Jedi" = /Jedi
Then, because of "unless," you negate the sufficient, so "//Jedi" which becomes simply "Jedi."
J → D
Or, if you took the other side as the sufficient,
/D → /J
Contrapositives, logically equivalent, and they give us the conclusion we reached with Lawgic.
You know what, I was really thinking about this after I made this comment. And I think that the work “cannot” is under inclusive in this premise! So it wouldn’t be identified as an indicator… Still working it out in my head lol :)
I'm also confused about this
Same here! I was confused by the same thing.
I know this example was being used to teach the third type of formal argument, but as was pointed out in the video, the main conclusion contains the negate sufficiency indicator word “unless”. So would it be appropriate and faster to apply the conditional indicator group 3 strategy instead?
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.
in application....since it says "unless" I will do the Group 3 technique... pick either idea, then negate that idea. then make the negated idea the sufficient condition. the other idea becomes the necessary condition. the two ideas are "DNBJ" (does not become a jedi) and "HED" (have extraordinary discipline). i will choose to negate DNBJ so it becomes /DNBJ (to note, it is a double negative and ultimately reads "negated does not become jedi" so it basically just means becomes jedi).
/DNBJ->HED
/HED->DNBJ
You explained it beautifully. Thank you so much for your help.
yes, i just worked this out on a sheet of paper and i think the operative detail is that it is about one not becoming a jedi. not just the state of being a jedi in itself.
so if you make it DNBJ (does not become jedi) rather than simply J (jedi), the math then works better.
similar to the transitive property in math
Transitive property is also important in philosophy and logic
Is there a way to depict chained conditional arguments with a visual?
for "one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline" I was super confused and only made sense through English rather than the rules. Until I realized I can use both rules it helped me out so im hoping this can help someone. For negating necessary (cannot) and negating sufficients (unless), we can do it both at the same time.
Jedi is the subject, Possesses extraordinary discipline is the predicate.
Negating Necessary is also known as subject -> /predicate
Negating Sufficients I do /subject -> predicate
Therefore, combining both would be /subject -> /predicate
/J -> /POD
POD -> J
I thought the same thing but I think it's only negate sufficient because cannot is used to be /J instead of an indicator so when made negated sufficient it's //J -> PED which makes it J-> PED
Second example All cats are animals since all cats are mammals, which are a subset of animals, does it make a difference which premise to start with? I did it in logic as following
C - A - M