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.
/A -> S (If Joffrey does not kill Arya, he must kill Sansa)
But that's wrong because doing so doesn't let you chain the conditionals correctly.
How does that differ from the correct diagram?:
A -> /S (If Joffrey kills Arya, he must not kill Sansa)
The wording in the sentence says "He cannot kill..." so I instantly diagrammed it with a negation and chose Arya randomly: /A , "he cannot kill Arya" and so on.
How is it necessarily true that if Joffrey kills John, Robb must be alive? The sentence doesn't imply that Joffrey killing Jon necessitates Robb to live. Would it not possible for Joffrey to kill Robb first, then kill Jon anyways?
Would the sentence not, then, have to be structured, "Only if he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon" ?
#5 i couldn't tell which way you were going -- if politicians were suppose to be elites or if the catch was we were incorrectly assuming that. A bit confusing id say.
This one was way tougher but having those reference words on hand was very helpful. It's nice to be able to write things down b/c I found that when I took my diagnostic, I was kind of vaguely chaining together things in my head (as opposed to spelling it out clearly).
#help # confused I am confused about why the statement following unless (negate, sufficient) in the necessary condition. When I did the exercise, I focused on the unless but placed this statement in the sufficient part of the condition and negated it.
i intuitively formed the chain in question 6 using the 'most essential' (matter) for the outcome (knowledge acquisition) so my chain looked like i was breaking down HOW to acquire knowledge in a step-by-step order. the proper chain begins with knowledge acquisition and then goes down each 'sub category' like a pyramid. is this how we should see it? more of a pyramid structure instead of a sequence of events? i'm just a little bit confused but my scapegoat is how i interpret sufficient v. necessity lol help please
yeah Q2 absolutely fried my brain. i did not know that "both A and S" does NOT mean the same thing as "neither A nor S". so at first i translated it to "/A -> /S (contra S -> A)". guess i need to read the dictionary for "both" and "neither" lol.
and then when i corrected my translations for each premise, it drove me nuts that i could only make chains with 4 of the 5 "characters" (conditions). screaming in my head HOW DO I FIT BOTH BRAN AND JON IN THIS EQUATION LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE. lol. well apparently they didnt need to both be in the equation. ok i did not know that.
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.
702 comments
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.
For Q2:
I diagrammed the third sentence as:
/A -> S (If Joffrey does not kill Arya, he must kill Sansa)
But that's wrong because doing so doesn't let you chain the conditionals correctly.
How does that differ from the correct diagram?:
A -> /S (If Joffrey kills Arya, he must not kill Sansa)
The wording in the sentence says "He cannot kill..." so I instantly diagrammed it with a negation and chose Arya randomly: /A , "he cannot kill Arya" and so on.
I do not understand the lawgic in Question 2.
"If he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon."
/R -> J
^ This makes sense, however,
/J -> R
How is it necessarily true that if Joffrey kills John, Robb must be alive? The sentence doesn't imply that Joffrey killing Jon necessitates Robb to live. Would it not possible for Joffrey to kill Robb first, then kill Jon anyways?
Would the sentence not, then, have to be structured, "Only if he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon" ?
#5 i couldn't tell which way you were going -- if politicians were suppose to be elites or if the catch was we were incorrectly assuming that. A bit confusing id say.
Even if there is no conditional chain, can I have two arrows coming out of "plant material is mixed into garden soil"
y'all 9:50 lmao
I struggled with most of these but the last one was a piece of CAKE
#2 got me I was confused and did j-kbr or j-/k-r. I didn't know until now with or you could do /f-y and /y-f. It did help
This one was way tougher but having those reference words on hand was very helpful. It's nice to be able to write things down b/c I found that when I took my diagnostic, I was kind of vaguely chaining together things in my head (as opposed to spelling it out clearly).
im cooked
#help # confused I am confused about why the statement following unless (negate, sufficient) in the necessary condition. When I did the exercise, I focused on the unless but placed this statement in the sufficient part of the condition and negated it.
i intuitively formed the chain in question 6 using the 'most essential' (matter) for the outcome (knowledge acquisition) so my chain looked like i was breaking down HOW to acquire knowledge in a step-by-step order. the proper chain begins with knowledge acquisition and then goes down each 'sub category' like a pyramid. is this how we should see it? more of a pyramid structure instead of a sequence of events? i'm just a little bit confused but my scapegoat is how i interpret sufficient v. necessity lol help please
I'm proud to say I got everything correct but this was a battle... good luck everyone 🫶🏽
this fried my brain
yeah Q2 absolutely fried my brain. i did not know that "both A and S" does NOT mean the same thing as "neither A nor S". so at first i translated it to "/A -> /S (contra S -> A)". guess i need to read the dictionary for "both" and "neither" lol.
and then when i corrected my translations for each premise, it drove me nuts that i could only make chains with 4 of the 5 "characters" (conditions). screaming in my head HOW DO I FIT BOTH BRAN AND JON IN THIS EQUATION LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE. lol. well apparently they didnt need to both be in the equation. ok i did not know that.
Fantastic exercise, loved this one.
Wishing you all the best!