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"
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?
If it says "X requires Y" then Y would be the necessary concept.
If it says "X is required by Y" then the necessary concept would be X.
I chose to think of "requires" as the same as a Group 2 indicator because the idea would follow the concept but if the wording is anything slightly off from "X requires Y" then read it carefully and figure out what direction the "require" word is pointing you to.
@Daisy228 "requires" is an indicator word from Group 2. In which case, what follows immediately after the indicator word is the necessity condition, hence, placed to the right of the arrow. So, yes.
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.
@CaseyLiu the way I understood it was that "unless" is a group 3 indicator, which requires you to negate the sufficient condition. In this case the premise states "one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline." and "cannot become jedi" negated is just become jedi. Idk if this helps or if anyone thought through this differently.
@CaseyLiu "unless" is from group 3. So, negate one and make it a sufficient. You are correct that the first clause "one cannot become a Jedi" is already a negative. Negation of which is /J. If picked and negated will become 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.
@SM_ not sure how long you've been studying but as someone relatively new, all of my drills are untimed right now in order to give me time to look over notes and talk my way through these concepts. Looking to be able to move onto timed drills soon.
@SM_ I do 5 questions untimed and pick manually, focusing on my weak areas. I also pick the questions from earlier prep tests so they don't get repeated in the full practice tests I do, which are from the more recent ones!
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.
@saulgoodman13 What helps me to think about this is looking at in the visual way. Think about the big circle (superset) as "Force users," and the little circle (subset) as "Jedi." Not all force users are Jedi, you also have Sith users and force users that are not Jedi.
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.
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?
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 :)
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
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.
90 comments
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 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"
I try not to depend on chaining because you do not have the luxury of time on this test...
Where do you get the drills or practice problems related to these lessons?
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?
Hey! Before you move on make sure to understand the sufficient and necessary and the indicator words thoroughly!
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.
I think you guys all know this but I have to ask.
Should I treat what comes after "requires" the same as "necessary"?
@Daisy228
If it says "X requires Y" then Y would be the necessary concept.
If it says "X is required by Y" then the necessary concept would be X.
I chose to think of "requires" as the same as a Group 2 indicator because the idea would follow the concept but if the wording is anything slightly off from "X requires Y" then read it carefully and figure out what direction the "require" word is pointing you to.
Hope this helps.
@WillowBound2 this was so easy to understand. Thanks! You are amazing
@Daisy228 "requires" is an indicator word from Group 2. In which case, what follows immediately after the indicator word is the necessity condition, hence, placed to the right of the arrow. So, yes.
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?
@CaseyLiu the way I understood it was that "unless" is a group 3 indicator, which requires you to negate the sufficient condition. In this case the premise states "one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline." and "cannot become jedi" negated is just become jedi. Idk if this helps or if anyone thought through this differently.
@CaseyLiu "unless" is from group 3. So, negate one and make it a sufficient. You are correct that the first clause "one cannot become a Jedi" is already a negative. Negation of which is /J. If picked and negated will become 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.
@SM_ not sure how long you've been studying but as someone relatively new, all of my drills are untimed right now in order to give me time to look over notes and talk my way through these concepts. Looking to be able to move onto timed drills soon.
@SM_ I do 5 questions untimed and pick manually, focusing on my weak areas. I also pick the questions from earlier prep tests so they don't get repeated in the full practice tests I do, which are from the more recent ones!
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.
@Sameer_Ahamad One cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline.
cannot become jedi (CJ) and possess extraordinary discipline (D)
apply sufficiency negate for group 3
/CJ -> D
or
/D -> CJ
/CJ is the same as J
rewritten is J -> D
One can be a Jedi if they possess extraordinary discipline.
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.
@saulgoodman13 What helps me to think about this is looking at in the visual way. Think about the big circle (superset) as "Force users," and the little circle (subset) as "Jedi." Not all force users are Jedi, you also have Sith users and force users that are not Jedi.
/feedback For the Jedi argument, break down the lawgic sentence by sentence. Currently, it jumps right to the solution
To be a Jedi, one must be a Force user.
J->F
Becoming a Force user requires years of training,
F -> T
which further requires extraordinary discipline.
T -> ED
Therefore, one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline.
/ED -> /J J -> ED
C: J -> F -> T -> ED
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.
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.
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
It's a valid argument based on the premises and the conclusion.
The premises are faulty however but you weren't asking for feedback there.
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?
Same here! I was confused by the same thing.
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
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.
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
Original Stimulus:
"All cats are animals since all cats are mammals, which are a subset of animals."
Cats: C
Animals: A
Mammals: M
Sufficient → Necessary
Subset → Superset
All: Indicates Sufficient
C → A since C → M, which M → A
C → M → A
This made more sense then separating between the groups and making the ideas sufficient/necessary lmao
real