what I don't understand is how to properly translate sentence 3 of question 2. I feel I could have easily wrote /s -> A instead of s -> /A. I don't know what conditional indicator group this sentence belongs to or how to translate it properly.
@isabellagirjikian I wouldn't worry about this particular Skill Builder right now -- you might go back first to the skill builders that came after learning the Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 indicators. Then come back to Chaining Conditionals 1. Reviewing those earlier lessons will probably help more than staying with this one.
If Mr. White grows weed, then he also cooks meth. If he synthesizes LSD, then he cannot cook meth. He can make heroin only if he synthesizes LSD.
Translation:
W -> M
LSD -> ~canM
canH -> LSD
Chains:
canH -> LSD -> ~canM (implies ~M) -> ~W
W -> M (implies canM) -> ~LSD -> ~canH
Chains translated:
if he can make heroin, he makes LSD, can't make meth, and doesn't grow weed
if he grows weed, he makes meth, doesn't make LSD, and can't make heroin
is there a rule of thumb to know when to immediately conflate potentiality vs actuality (since one is the superset of the other)? or do we need to write out this extra dimension of M -> canM and ~canM -> ~M, so that we don’t make the mistake of connecting from canM -> M or ~M -> ~canM, until it’s intuitive?
consider if you had given these premises instead, flipping the potentiality and actuality of each variable:
Reverse Stimulus:
If Mr. White can grow weed, then he can also cook meth. If he can synthesize LSD, then he doesn’t cook meth. He makes heroin only if he can synthesize LSD.
Translation:
canW -> canM
canLSD -> ~M
H -> canLSD
Chains:
H -> canLSD -> ~M
chain breaks down here bc just bc he doesn’t currently make meth doesn’t mean it’s impossible for him to make meth; ~M doesn’t imply ~canM
and with the contrapositive:
canW -> canM
whole chain breaks down immediately bc just bc he can make meth doesn’t mean he actually does; canM doesn’t imply M
if the order of “cans” were switched in the stimulus and we assumed that canM = M for simplicity sake, we would have gotten this question wrong. how do we handle this?
What exactly is the point of understanding these chains? We don't get much time on the test so how useful is this if you understand the S/N clauses and their indicators?
@ogreen26 If you can do questions like these accurately (and efficiently) without needing to draw anything out, then that's a good sign. You probably won't need to think about diagramming conditionals chains.
For #2, most sentences technically has two indicator words (ex. Joffrey must kill Bran or Rob; If he doesn't...he cannot kill...; If he doesn't... he must kill...). Taking the second sentence as an ex., I'm getting confused figuring out which indicator to use, and hence how to sort it into its correct group. Is it that if there is a Group 3/4 word, that gets priority? Or something else. Thank you!! :)
@Bridget Good question -- I'm pasting a response to a similar one below:
"You must be at least 18 to vote."
Here, "at least 18" is a necessary condition for voting. So if you aren't 18, then you can't vote.
"Joffrey must kill Bran or Rob."
The "must" can be viewed as a necessary condition...for being Joffrey. But that's an awkward interpretation. If "Joffrey --> must kill Bran or Robb". If you don't have to kill Bran or Rob, then you're not Joffrey.
The explanation focuses on what the idea of having to kill Bran or Robb means. So, we're accepting that we're talking about Joffrey. He has to kill Bran or Robb. What does that mean? That means if he doesn't kill B, he must kill R. And if he doesn't kill R, then he must kill B.
This isn't really actionable advice right now, but when it comes to conditional indicators, remember that you shouldn't always just apply them mechanically. Many uses of "cannot," "without," and "any," for example, are not conditional. And depending on the content of the sentence as well as the surrounding sentences, certain relationships are more useful to focus on than others. This will make more sense later when you get into taking sections and PTs.
#5 is terribly wrong. If I did that chain in a sufficient assumption or flaw without the text explicitly stating the relationship, the test would punish me tremendously as one would pick probably a wrong answer.
@juvargasc See my take on this at about 30:35 in the video explanation. This exercise isn't meant to suggest that "politicians are part of society's elite" and that if you think otherwise you're wrong.
For Q4, specifically in the second sentence, I am confused about why we are ignoring the “must” as I thought that belong to Group 2 necessary but instead we are intuitively are suppose to know that “in order to” is sufficient.
My overall question is when do we know to pick which indicator rules to follow? Because I chose “must” instead of “in order to”.
@BestLSATmastereverrr2026 Either one works -- must introducing a necessary condition would lead to the same interpretation: knowing how to cast the H Charm is necessary to mix plant material into the garden soil.
@180-Energy some are easily grouped like no/none/never (necessary) and all/any/every (sufficient), then remembering which side to negate with something like unless -> none.
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.
@Laylay Hi! In that sentence the only conditional indicator present is "must." "in order to" is not a conditional indicator in this scenario.
"Must" is in group 2 so the concept following the indicator will be the necessary condition. That's why we'd make the relationship (Mix plant material) --> (know how to cast Herb charm).
@jyun Hmm... Interesting. I didn't watch the video but the text lesson seems to disagree with you, saying "in order to" is an indicator for a sufficient condition. Interesting that the lesson doesn't mention the presence of "must."
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.
@Laylay It is inclusive. “If he doesn’t kill Rob, then he must kill Bran” is inclusive because it doens’t prevent killing both. It means if you don’t kill one, you must kill the other.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you for your reply. With inclusive or, should we also account for a scenario where it is possible we will Rob AND we kill Bran. In this scenario, it's either if you don't kill Rob, then you kill Bran. Or if you don't kill bran, you kill Rob. What about if you killed both? Or is that not what the inclusive or is about.
@Laylay That is what the inclusive OR allows -- he might kill both.
"If he doesn't kill R, he must kill B"
That doesn't mean he has to kill only one one of them. I know it might sound like that, but think through the logic:
If he doesn't kill R, then he must kill B.
If he doesn't kill B, then he must kill R.
What if he DOES kill R? Does that tell us what happens with B? No. He might kill B, too.
What if he DOES kill B? Does that tel us what happens with R? No. He might kill R, too.
So "If he doesn't kill R, then he must kill B" actually does mean inclusive OR. It's saying he has to kill at least one of them. He can't kill 0. He has to kill at least one. It's not precluding him from killing both, even though it might sound like it does.
@Kevin_Lin I see, and since it doesn't preclude him from killing both is that something I should also map out in the logic? Or is that helpful to know for different answers that might show for a question on the LSAT?
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.
@TobiStein That is exactly what I was thinking. In my opinion connecting them just for pure logic chain is not correct, it's forcing a relation that the text didn't establish whatsoever.
@TobiStein I would second your argument. The statement should have used a better qualifier like "national" or "cabinet" officials because I'm quite sure the far vaster number of politicians holding local/state office aren't going to cause a traditional revolution. I really don't like "contextualized inference" as they present imo, lazy assumptions.
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.
807 comments
what I don't understand is how to properly translate sentence 3 of question 2. I feel I could have easily wrote /s -> A instead of s -> /A. I don't know what conditional indicator group this sentence belongs to or how to translate it properly.
i feel my brain growing
Am really struggling with these concepts, please send help ://///
@isabellagirjikian I wouldn't worry about this particular Skill Builder right now -- you might go back first to the skill builders that came after learning the Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 indicators. Then come back to Chaining Conditionals 1. Reviewing those earlier lessons will probably help more than staying with this one.
Weed, meth, heroin, LSD, killing him, killing her, politicians are elite rulers.....wild examples, but I am enjoying the structured logic lessons
Finally, 6/6....!
Q2 messed me up because I didn't know to make 2 different chains. I just did:
Sansa -> /Arya -> /Robb -> Bran -> Jon
/Jon -> /Bran -> Robb -> Arya -> /Sansa
Q1
Stimulus:
If Mr. White grows weed, then he also cooks meth. If he synthesizes LSD, then he cannot cook meth. He can make heroin only if he synthesizes LSD.
Translation:
W -> M
LSD -> ~canM
canH -> LSD
Chains:
canH -> LSD -> ~canM (implies ~M) -> ~W
W -> M (implies canM) -> ~LSD -> ~canH
Chains translated:
if he can make heroin, he makes LSD, can't make meth, and doesn't grow weed
if he grows weed, he makes meth, doesn't make LSD, and can't make heroin
is there a rule of thumb to know when to immediately conflate potentiality vs actuality (since one is the superset of the other)? or do we need to write out this extra dimension of M -> canM and ~canM -> ~M, so that we don’t make the mistake of connecting from canM -> M or ~M -> ~canM, until it’s intuitive?
consider if you had given these premises instead, flipping the potentiality and actuality of each variable:
Reverse Stimulus:
If Mr. White can grow weed, then he can also cook meth. If he can synthesize LSD, then he doesn’t cook meth. He makes heroin only if he can synthesize LSD.
Translation:
canW -> canM
canLSD -> ~M
H -> canLSD
Chains:
H -> canLSD -> ~M
chain breaks down here bc just bc he doesn’t currently make meth doesn’t mean it’s impossible for him to make meth; ~M doesn’t imply ~canM
and with the contrapositive:
canW -> canM
whole chain breaks down immediately bc just bc he can make meth doesn’t mean he actually does; canM doesn’t imply M
if the order of “cans” were switched in the stimulus and we assumed that canM = M for simplicity sake, we would have gotten this question wrong. how do we handle this?
two and three are EVIL
Ik thats right
The North remembers
does the page keep opening the answers before you click for it for anyone else?
@maydhak it's been doing this for me too! i keep having to refresh every couple of questions which is frustrating
What exactly is the point of understanding these chains? We don't get much time on the test so how useful is this if you understand the S/N clauses and their indicators?
@ogreen26 If you can do questions like these accurately (and efficiently) without needing to draw anything out, then that's a good sign. You probably won't need to think about diagramming conditionals chains.
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/intro-youtry-1-pt123-s3-q22
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-1-pt111-s3-q18
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/drill-pt124-s3-q19-pt110-s2-q23-pt112-s1-q14
But if you struggle with these, then understanding how to diagram conditional chains can help on a few questions in each section.
@Kevin_Lin I understand, thank you!
I’m so so so confused
I had to fight for my life to make it through these.. We made it tho :)
For #2, most sentences technically has two indicator words (ex. Joffrey must kill Bran or Rob; If he doesn't...he cannot kill...; If he doesn't... he must kill...). Taking the second sentence as an ex., I'm getting confused figuring out which indicator to use, and hence how to sort it into its correct group. Is it that if there is a Group 3/4 word, that gets priority? Or something else. Thank you!! :)
@Bridget Good question -- I'm pasting a response to a similar one below:
"You must be at least 18 to vote."
Here, "at least 18" is a necessary condition for voting. So if you aren't 18, then you can't vote.
"Joffrey must kill Bran or Rob."
The "must" can be viewed as a necessary condition...for being Joffrey. But that's an awkward interpretation. If "Joffrey --> must kill Bran or Robb". If you don't have to kill Bran or Rob, then you're not Joffrey.
The explanation focuses on what the idea of having to kill Bran or Robb means. So, we're accepting that we're talking about Joffrey. He has to kill Bran or Robb. What does that mean? That means if he doesn't kill B, he must kill R. And if he doesn't kill R, then he must kill B.
This isn't really actionable advice right now, but when it comes to conditional indicators, remember that you shouldn't always just apply them mechanically. Many uses of "cannot," "without," and "any," for example, are not conditional. And depending on the content of the sentence as well as the surrounding sentences, certain relationships are more useful to focus on than others. This will make more sense later when you get into taking sections and PTs.
#5 is terribly wrong. If I did that chain in a sufficient assumption or flaw without the text explicitly stating the relationship, the test would punish me tremendously as one would pick probably a wrong answer.
@juvargasc See my take on this at about 30:35 in the video explanation. This exercise isn't meant to suggest that "politicians are part of society's elite" and that if you think otherwise you're wrong.
@Kevin_Lin Wow, thanks for the answer.
[This comment was deleted.]
For Q4, specifically in the second sentence, I am confused about why we are ignoring the “must” as I thought that belong to Group 2 necessary but instead we are intuitively are suppose to know that “in order to” is sufficient.
My overall question is when do we know to pick which indicator rules to follow? Because I chose “must” instead of “in order to”.
@BestLSATmastereverrr2026 Either one works -- must introducing a necessary condition would lead to the same interpretation: knowing how to cast the H Charm is necessary to mix plant material into the garden soil.
mix plant --> know how to cast H Charm
@Kevin_Lin thank you so much for the clarification!
For Q3, why does using either the "no" or "unless" rule not technically matter?
question 5 confused me. im not supposed to assume..and then I am?
@ShanR Check out the video explanation of Question 5. I think it'll address this issue.
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
@180-Energy some are easily grouped like no/none/never (necessary) and all/any/every (sufficient), then remembering which side to negate with something like unless -> none.
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.
@Laylay Hi! In that sentence the only conditional indicator present is "must." "in order to" is not a conditional indicator in this scenario.
"Must" is in group 2 so the concept following the indicator will be the necessary condition. That's why we'd make the relationship (Mix plant material) --> (know how to cast Herb charm).
@jyun Hmm... Interesting. I didn't watch the video but the text lesson seems to disagree with you, saying "in order to" is an indicator for a sufficient condition. Interesting that the lesson doesn't mention the presence of "must."
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.
@Laylay It is inclusive. “If he doesn’t kill Rob, then he must kill Bran” is inclusive because it doens’t prevent killing both. It means if you don’t kill one, you must kill the other.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you for your reply. With inclusive or, should we also account for a scenario where it is possible we will Rob AND we kill Bran. In this scenario, it's either if you don't kill Rob, then you kill Bran. Or if you don't kill bran, you kill Rob. What about if you killed both? Or is that not what the inclusive or is about.
@Laylay That is what the inclusive OR allows -- he might kill both.
"If he doesn't kill R, he must kill B"
That doesn't mean he has to kill only one one of them. I know it might sound like that, but think through the logic:
If he doesn't kill R, then he must kill B.
If he doesn't kill B, then he must kill R.
What if he DOES kill R? Does that tell us what happens with B? No. He might kill B, too.
What if he DOES kill B? Does that tel us what happens with R? No. He might kill R, too.
So "If he doesn't kill R, then he must kill B" actually does mean inclusive OR. It's saying he has to kill at least one of them. He can't kill 0. He has to kill at least one. It's not precluding him from killing both, even though it might sound like it does.
@Kevin_Lin I see, and since it doesn't preclude him from killing both is that something I should also map out in the logic? Or is that helpful to know for different answers that might show for a question on the LSAT?
@Laylay ^^, would love if there was a fast-track lesson on this, or some place that had practice problems with inclusive or vs. exclusive or!
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.
@TobiStein That is exactly what I was thinking. In my opinion connecting them just for pure logic chain is not correct, it's forcing a relation that the text didn't establish whatsoever.
@TobiStein I would second your argument. The statement should have used a better qualifier like "national" or "cabinet" officials because I'm quite sure the far vaster number of politicians holding local/state office aren't going to cause a traditional revolution. I really don't like "contextualized inference" as they present imo, lazy assumptions.
@montesedgar See the video explanation at 30:31 for an extended take on this.
Question 2 ended my study session for the day. Brain = fried.
@DamiOye lolll real