Did anyone else have in their notes that "in order to" is a necessary indicator? I went back to the lesson and don't see "in order to" listed as one of the indicator words but had it in my notes for some reason. That threw me off for question 4.
For question 2, how come "Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb" can't be the inclusive and (and/or), which the video said is the most commonly form of "or" used on the LSAT. In the video example from that lesson, the inclusive and/or was used with a sentence "Jon must enroll in Econ101 or Polsci101 this semester" which mean he could do either class or BOTH of the classes. I don't get what's different functionally from the Jon example sentence and "Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb". There's nothing saying Joffreey can't kill both which is why the rest of my chaining ended up being different.
For question 5, the written explanation states that we should make the reasonable assumption that politicians are a subset of the elite. However, when I was working out this problem it felt like a "link assumption" question where they would conclude "if society is declining, revolution will follow" and task us with identifying an assumption which would make the argument valid, which would have to be politicians -> elite.
There are many politicians who could reasonably not be considered part of the elite (think union leader or sheriff), so this assumption feels like one that should be explicitly part of the argument OR the reason why the argument is flawed/invalid.
This could just be me and my cultural context, though. Maybe I've shifted the goalpost for who is considered "elite" and need to leave that hang-up at the door.
Is 'must' not a necessary condition? if it is, wouldn't Bran (idea immediately following the indicator) be the necessary condition (group 2), aka appearing after the arrow? meaning:
R -> /B or B -> /R
Why is the explanation showing:
/R -> B or /B -> R
(I know it seems identical, but its not, the negations are flipped. one allows you to connect to the chain the other does not. Im struggling to understand why we chose this order, the video doesn't explain this well.)
In question 2, couldn't the "or" in "Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb," also be an inclusive and/or? Does the same thing apply as with Arya and Sansa with the word "both"? I thought about the Econ and Poli Sci 101 example, the student could pick one or the other, or both. When creating the Lawgic sentences should this idea of and/or be ignored unless explicitly stated?
i am getting all of these right just by chaining them together intuitively. i haven't been following the group 1,2,3,4 indicator rules because i feel like they intuitively make sense to me but i am scared that i am messing myself up for when they get more complex? do i need to really need to be identifying which word the conditional indicator is in if i can intuit how it functions in a sentence and apply the rule without thinking?
No because what do you mean "the only" is a sufficient condition in Q3? If that's not a listed word and necessary has all the "only"s then how would we be expected to figure that out.
I think what I don't like about this is I'm being asked to understand it which I kind of do, but not in the context of an LSAT question so I have no frame of reference for how organizing this information will ultimately help me answer a question correctly. I feel like I'm sitting down at a poker table with one card instead of two and told to place a bet without seeing how the hand plays out.
For question 2 for the arya and sansa line i interpreted that as "/kill arya --> kill sansa" but he did it as "kill arya --> kill Sansa" why did my way mess up the while diagram? It seems to make sense given the conditions.
In regards to #3, where in the lesson did we learn that "the only" indicates a sufficient condition? I read it as "only" and therefore confused it for a necessary condition, so my entire answer was backwards.
i feel like i can understand what is being said and how to dissect the argument in my head but i keep messing up on connecting the conditionals and when i write it down it seems like im flipping the conditions
now who made question 2, i thought i was going crazy
8
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.
772 comments
question 5 confused me. im not supposed to assume..and then I am?
Does anyone have any tips for remembering which terms belong to each group?
eg. Group 1 (sufficient): if, when, where, all, the only, every, any
Did anyone else have in their notes that "in order to" is a necessary indicator? I went back to the lesson and don't see "in order to" listed as one of the indicator words but had it in my notes for some reason. That threw me off for question 4.
For question 2, how come "Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb" can't be the inclusive and (and/or), which the video said is the most commonly form of "or" used on the LSAT. In the video example from that lesson, the inclusive and/or was used with a sentence "Jon must enroll in Econ101 or Polsci101 this semester" which mean he could do either class or BOTH of the classes. I don't get what's different functionally from the Jon example sentence and "Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb". There's nothing saying Joffreey can't kill both which is why the rest of my chaining ended up being different.
For question 5, the written explanation states that we should make the reasonable assumption that politicians are a subset of the elite. However, when I was working out this problem it felt like a "link assumption" question where they would conclude "if society is declining, revolution will follow" and task us with identifying an assumption which would make the argument valid, which would have to be politicians -> elite.
There are many politicians who could reasonably not be considered part of the elite (think union leader or sheriff), so this assumption feels like one that should be explicitly part of the argument OR the reason why the argument is flawed/invalid.
This could just be me and my cultural context, though. Maybe I've shifted the goalpost for who is considered "elite" and need to leave that hang-up at the door.
Question 2 ended my study session for the day. Brain = fried.
On question one final step, do you have to counterpositive the last sentance? I had Weed>Meth>Not LSD> Not Heroin
Do we need to then take contrapositive? If so why?
I'm so confused
Q2 Sentence #1:
Is 'must' not a necessary condition? if it is, wouldn't Bran (idea immediately following the indicator) be the necessary condition (group 2), aka appearing after the arrow? meaning:
R -> /B or B -> /R
Why is the explanation showing:
/R -> B or /B -> R
(I know it seems identical, but its not, the negations are flipped. one allows you to connect to the chain the other does not. Im struggling to understand why we chose this order, the video doesn't explain this well.)
I'm cooked
In question 2, couldn't the "or" in "Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb," also be an inclusive and/or? Does the same thing apply as with Arya and Sansa with the word "both"? I thought about the Econ and Poli Sci 101 example, the student could pick one or the other, or both. When creating the Lawgic sentences should this idea of and/or be ignored unless explicitly stated?
Does anyone else show the answer for one, move to the next, their page buffers, and then they load all answers and wipe your work? So frustrating...
Q2 was killing me mentally
Wow deteriorating
I got number 2! It took me longer than it took them to release 8 seasons of game of thrones, but I got it!
i am getting all of these right just by chaining them together intuitively. i haven't been following the group 1,2,3,4 indicator rules because i feel like they intuitively make sense to me but i am scared that i am messing myself up for when they get more complex? do i need to really need to be identifying which word the conditional indicator is in if i can intuit how it functions in a sentence and apply the rule without thinking?
No because what do you mean "the only" is a sufficient condition in Q3? If that's not a listed word and necessary has all the "only"s then how would we be expected to figure that out.
I think what I don't like about this is I'm being asked to understand it which I kind of do, but not in the context of an LSAT question so I have no frame of reference for how organizing this information will ultimately help me answer a question correctly. I feel like I'm sitting down at a poker table with one card instead of two and told to place a bet without seeing how the hand plays out.
where can I get more practice for this?
For question 2 for the arya and sansa line i interpreted that as "/kill arya --> kill sansa" but he did it as "kill arya --> kill Sansa" why did my way mess up the while diagram? It seems to make sense given the conditions.
Got everything but number 2, but i feel a little better about it.
For number 2, how about F -> /Y and Y-> /F? Is this not possible?
In regards to #3, where in the lesson did we learn that "the only" indicates a sufficient condition? I read it as "only" and therefore confused it for a necessary condition, so my entire answer was backwards.
i feel like i can understand what is being said and how to dissect the argument in my head but i keep messing up on connecting the conditionals and when i write it down it seems like im flipping the conditions
now who made question 2, i thought i was going crazy