For #5, I deduced Politicians become corrupt and society's elite corrupt as just C (for corruption) in both of my chains bc both concepts mean the same thing. Is that correct way to look at it?
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.
814 comments
for #6, how come the contrapositive was not taken?
@JashanpreetMalhi No specific reason! The contrapositive of the whole chain is also something that must be true.
For #5, I deduced Politicians become corrupt and society's elite corrupt as just C (for corruption) in both of my chains bc both concepts mean the same thing. Is that correct way to look at it?
Oh, the sentences are short, they might be easy!
...
*sees a 38 min explainer video
Hi. For Q 2. I did B-->/R or contra R-->/B and i couldn't make it work. Is this the same thing as your answer?
@tessascribner I also did /A-->/R or R-->A and could not connect the first and second sentence
@tessascribner i know intuitively the arrow could go in either direction but wondering why it can't work in the other combination.
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.