I did not do that well, but after watching the videos I have a good sense of why that was. I am still getting confused on the No and Unless (at the same time) conditionals. Any recommendation to help me understand these concepts quicker?
Great exercises! I feel that the individuals commenting about the level of difficulty did not spend enough time studying the previous lessons and memorizing the conditional indicators. Great Work! Genuinely. I feel I am improving a lot!
In Question 1, is it the same thing to say that Mr. White "cooks meth" vs he "can cook meth"? In the module right before this we differentiated between being expected to do something vs being able to do something. Should we not apply the same differentiation here?
Q1 - I am confused why it is reasonable to assume that because Mr. White "can cook meth" that he does. The first premise introduces "cooks meth" as a necessary condition to growing weed. The following premise, however, sets up a sufficient condition under which Mr. White CAN cook meth. "Can cook meth" is necessary but not sufficient for actually cooking meth, and it feels like an unreasonable leap to assume just because he can do something, he does.
In the previous Skill Builder we were unable to draw the link between Barbie is expected to make touch decisions versus actually making them. I got this wrong just a few minutes before attempting Q1 here, so I was on hyper alert for scrutinizing the main concepts.
The bigger question here is whether there is any gauge for determining what slight differences in concepts can be reasonably assumed to be grouped together. My assumption is that this is just one of those things you get better at knowing through experience tackling more and more LSAT questions.
Thanks in advance for anyone who can help me understand this!
Can someone please explain how to use the Group 4 indicator for "no" instead of the Group 3 indicator for "unless" in the second sentence of Question 3?
Number 4 feels wrong logically because if you know how to cast Herbivicus Charm, then you can mix plant material into garden soil and if you do that then the number of beneficial soil bacteria will increase. That connection feels logical, yet lawgic claims there's no connection. What am I missing?
For question two, I translated the first statement to be B -> /R and the contrapositive to be R -> /B. This really threw off my ability to chain the conditionals together, even though I translated the rest of the statements like how it is presented in the answer. Is there an unspoken rule that when you are presented with an "or" statement, such as the one presented, that the first object given in the sentence has a "not" in front of it? In the video, the example given was G or L, then it was translated to /G -> L. Not sure if I explained my thought process very well, but I would like some clarification on this if anyone can help me out. @Kevin Lin 2
I'm not seeing the image/the image isn't loading for the end of Question 2: "The whole relationship may be easier to understand in an image. See this:" I'm so curious what this image is. Please tell me it's a meme or diagram chart of Joff's GOT hit list (is it b4 the Purple Wedding?)
Got a real gripe with question #5!!!! It's not fair to assume that WE should make a contextualized inference that politicians and society's elite are the same when there IS NO CONTEXT in the question. If on the LSAT there was a sentence prior that read something along the lines of "citizens of a nation presuppose that politicians and society's elite are the same.," then I'm happy to make that inference.
14
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!
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.
728 comments
now who made question 2, i thought i was going crazy
they think they're real clever with that "the only", huh...
Please burn question number 2 thanks
I did not do that well, but after watching the videos I have a good sense of why that was. I am still getting confused on the No and Unless (at the same time) conditionals. Any recommendation to help me understand these concepts quicker?
queston 2 was a mess...
I don’t think we’ll have time to diagram on the test, so would the best way to approach chained conditionals be to remember indicators? Right?
i've never seen "Whenever" introduces a sufficient condition (Group 1)?? or is it just me?
Great exercises! I feel that the individuals commenting about the level of difficulty did not spend enough time studying the previous lessons and memorizing the conditional indicators. Great Work! Genuinely. I feel I am improving a lot!
[This comment was deleted.]
This was the easiest skill builder in the entire section
In Question 1, is it the same thing to say that Mr. White "cooks meth" vs he "can cook meth"? In the module right before this we differentiated between being expected to do something vs being able to do something. Should we not apply the same differentiation here?
These examples are kinda....well the first two at least. Who wrote them? lol
Q1 - I am confused why it is reasonable to assume that because Mr. White "can cook meth" that he does. The first premise introduces "cooks meth" as a necessary condition to growing weed. The following premise, however, sets up a sufficient condition under which Mr. White CAN cook meth. "Can cook meth" is necessary but not sufficient for actually cooking meth, and it feels like an unreasonable leap to assume just because he can do something, he does.
In the previous Skill Builder we were unable to draw the link between Barbie is expected to make touch decisions versus actually making them. I got this wrong just a few minutes before attempting Q1 here, so I was on hyper alert for scrutinizing the main concepts.
The bigger question here is whether there is any gauge for determining what slight differences in concepts can be reasonably assumed to be grouped together. My assumption is that this is just one of those things you get better at knowing through experience tackling more and more LSAT questions.
Thanks in advance for anyone who can help me understand this!
I feel like I will never be able to actually do this on a test, idk if I am being pessimistic though
Can someone please explain how to use the Group 4 indicator for "no" instead of the Group 3 indicator for "unless" in the second sentence of Question 3?
I've never felt more dumb
Number 4 feels wrong logically because if you know how to cast Herbivicus Charm, then you can mix plant material into garden soil and if you do that then the number of beneficial soil bacteria will increase. That connection feels logical, yet lawgic claims there's no connection. What am I missing?
Question 5 should be taken out of your curriculum
man, I spent about 30 minutes on 2--oh my world
He must grow the meth
For question two, I translated the first statement to be B -> /R and the contrapositive to be R -> /B. This really threw off my ability to chain the conditionals together, even though I translated the rest of the statements like how it is presented in the answer. Is there an unspoken rule that when you are presented with an "or" statement, such as the one presented, that the first object given in the sentence has a "not" in front of it? In the video, the example given was G or L, then it was translated to /G -> L. Not sure if I explained my thought process very well, but I would like some clarification on this if anyone can help me out. @Kevin Lin 2
Its a bit frustrating to read that in question #3 "THE only" creates a sufficient condition but that was not at all mentioned during that lesson.
I'm not seeing the image/the image isn't loading for the end of Question 2: "The whole relationship may be easier to understand in an image. See this:" I'm so curious what this image is. Please tell me it's a meme or diagram chart of Joff's GOT hit list (is it b4 the Purple Wedding?)
Please burn #5
Got a real gripe with question #5!!!! It's not fair to assume that WE should make a contextualized inference that politicians and society's elite are the same when there IS NO CONTEXT in the question. If on the LSAT there was a sentence prior that read something along the lines of "citizens of a nation presuppose that politicians and society's elite are the same.," then I'm happy to make that inference.