To anyone reading this comment feeling defeated and completely lost (like I did), I HIGHLY suggest going through the entire conditional and set logic curriculum again once you've sat on it for a couple of days. Everything is super easy and clear now that I'm revisiting it!!
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.
@cwferrari I agree. I feel that so far, we have been taught to take wording extremely literal and to not make unreasonable assumptions. This question is troubling for me. Of course my brain resorted to assuming which in this case worked to my benefit, however, I thought this is what we were trying to prevent our brains from defaulting to, based on the nature of the test.
@cwferrari I was confused as well, but the video made it click for me! Basically, the point of this question is to illustrate the principle that sometimes we have to make an inference and put 2 and 2 together. The LSAT writers are going to ask you to make an inference sometimes, but I don't think it'll be as big of a stretch as this question. I think it will probably show up like the moving vehicle taxi example though, which just seems more reasonable to me.
Is anyone else struggling with these more than normal? I feel like I was mostly grasping and obviously straining to understand, but this specific set feels like it suddenly fast tracked me and expected an immense amount of integration of so much knowledge -- almost like I missed something/ stretching beyond my current ability.
Until now the assignments felt like they matched the information I learned
for some reason this assignment is feeling extra hard to me
Can someone commiserate? lol make me feel normal
Or maybe I should be up to par to do this, and if that is the case I should probably go back and review (although for may of the questions I had to go back and rewatch stuff anyways)
Something I'd suggest is a gap in the video explanation is how to get creative with CI terms. Here alone it used two I wasn't familiar with (the only & requires). All I have thus far is a memorized list with no understanding of why the list includes these words and how to understand words that can replace them. Practicing helps and makes you see how to replace, but nonetheless I feel like bc it was taught in a somewhat rigid way it's hard. You did consistently mention inclusive/ exclusive, but that to me felt more like a disclaimer than anything, than an understanding or explanation of why this is the case.
I wasn't taught WHY these words are on the list - only to memorize them- so its hard to think how to add when I don't understand the reasoning.
I think that would help a lot
(although of course its possible its just me and I was going to quickly or didn't process that this was taught. Im not sure if others feel this way as well?)
I 100% agree with you. This exercise expected us to combine all the past few lessons we have been learning together. I think it's normal to be somewhat stumped. I certainly was, and kept making mistakes. I'm going to compensate by going over previous indicator words and committing them to memory.
Is it possible to get more clarification on these like in the previous skill builders? I am getting a few wrong but there's no explanation on how to do it right so I can fix my mistakes. #feedback
Could have used some additional information/explanation here, felt like I nailed a couple of these and others I was completely lost and could not determine how the chaining was achieved.
@AndrewPetty I don't see the point in Lawgic. I have a great grasp on the statements/arguments already so why do I need to use algebraic symbols? IDK... I feel like it is a waste of time.
@SophiaWood Diagramming into symbols isn't necessary to solve questions. Consider it a tool that you might want to use when you start getting a lot of conditionals or when you are confused about the structure and need to get clear on exactly what elements you need to connect to each other. For example, diagramming might be help save time or avoid careless mistakes in questions like these (not necessary, just helpful): https://7sage.com/u/usr_02xU3hBSRMEWCSzH75UIkA/question/PT122.S2.Q7
786 comments
Well that was a spike in difficulty lol
To anyone reading this comment feeling defeated and completely lost (like I did), I HIGHLY suggest going through the entire conditional and set logic curriculum again once you've sat on it for a couple of days. Everything is super easy and clear now that I'm revisiting it!!
I've never felt more dumb
Please burn question number 2 thanks
I feel so brain dead
what da fuq
Amen, of all the sections to not make videos or provide an explanation for it had to be this one...
real i get the singular signals but the chained are crazzzzy
mood
real. im so confused
i’m the opposite 😭 this is the first section i’ve been confused on since starting the core curriculum
im cooked
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.
@cwferrari I agree. I feel that so far, we have been taught to take wording extremely literal and to not make unreasonable assumptions. This question is troubling for me. Of course my brain resorted to assuming which in this case worked to my benefit, however, I thought this is what we were trying to prevent our brains from defaulting to, based on the nature of the test.
@cwferrari I was confused as well, but the video made it click for me! Basically, the point of this question is to illustrate the principle that sometimes we have to make an inference and put 2 and 2 together. The LSAT writers are going to ask you to make an inference sometimes, but I don't think it'll be as big of a stretch as this question. I think it will probably show up like the moving vehicle taxi example though, which just seems more reasonable to me.
Wow, I went from fully comprehending all the info to my brain turning to jelly the moment I saw #2
Lost me at question 1.
I feel like im doing algebra
this exercise absolutely wrecked my brain
I'm cooked
already completely lost on number 1
[This comment was deleted.]
this fried my brain
Is anyone else struggling with these more than normal? I feel like I was mostly grasping and obviously straining to understand, but this specific set feels like it suddenly fast tracked me and expected an immense amount of integration of so much knowledge -- almost like I missed something/ stretching beyond my current ability.
Until now the assignments felt like they matched the information I learned
for some reason this assignment is feeling extra hard to me
Can someone commiserate? lol make me feel normal
Or maybe I should be up to par to do this, and if that is the case I should probably go back and review (although for may of the questions I had to go back and rewatch stuff anyways)
#feedback
Something I'd suggest is a gap in the video explanation is how to get creative with CI terms. Here alone it used two I wasn't familiar with (the only & requires). All I have thus far is a memorized list with no understanding of why the list includes these words and how to understand words that can replace them. Practicing helps and makes you see how to replace, but nonetheless I feel like bc it was taught in a somewhat rigid way it's hard. You did consistently mention inclusive/ exclusive, but that to me felt more like a disclaimer than anything, than an understanding or explanation of why this is the case.
I wasn't taught WHY these words are on the list - only to memorize them- so its hard to think how to add when I don't understand the reasoning.
I think that would help a lot
(although of course its possible its just me and I was going to quickly or didn't process that this was taught. Im not sure if others feel this way as well?)
I 100% agree with you. This exercise expected us to combine all the past few lessons we have been learning together. I think it's normal to be somewhat stumped. I certainly was, and kept making mistakes. I'm going to compensate by going over previous indicator words and committing them to memory.
Yes! i feel the same
I feel the same as well! only out of all of the learned topics that I am struggling with.
This kicked my butt the first time. I reviewed all 4 groups and came back to it these the next day and everything made more sense. Don't give up!
yeah thats what i did too. take breaks, come back, review all 4 groups, then try again. trust its better that way.
Is it possible to get more clarification on these like in the previous skill builders? I am getting a few wrong but there's no explanation on how to do it right so I can fix my mistakes. #feedback
Lost me at this lesson, any further explanations would be most helpful.
After assigning the symbols am i to use contrapositives as the answers?
Could have used some additional information/explanation here, felt like I nailed a couple of these and others I was completely lost and could not determine how the chaining was achieved.
I feel like I will never be able to actually do this on a test, idk if I am being pessimistic though
@AndrewPetty I don't see the point in Lawgic. I have a great grasp on the statements/arguments already so why do I need to use algebraic symbols? IDK... I feel like it is a waste of time.
@SophiaWood Diagramming into symbols isn't necessary to solve questions. Consider it a tool that you might want to use when you start getting a lot of conditionals or when you are confused about the structure and need to get clear on exactly what elements you need to connect to each other. For example, diagramming might be help save time or avoid careless mistakes in questions like these (not necessary, just helpful): https://7sage.com/u/usr_02xU3hBSRMEWCSzH75UIkA/question/PT122.S2.Q7
https://7sage.com/u/usr_02xU3hBSRMEWCSzH75UIkA/question/PT110.S2.Q23
https://7sage.com/u/usr_02xU3hBSRMEWCSzH75UIkA/question/PT127.S1.Q17
this is the only exercise ive been stumped on so far. why is this incredibly frustrating?!?!?!?
Hardest Skill Builder yet, but very helpful for learning the concept. Will have to come back to this one later to see if it stuck
question 5 confused me due to the assumption that politicians are the elite.
same! i thought we were supposed to take the words at face value