necessary (N) = if N does not happen then X cannot happen
Interestingly enough, S not happening doesn't mean X won't happen and N happening does not mean X will happen. Which I think would have made total sense to me if you hadn't spent a bunch of exercises teaching me how to use the contrapositives of everything with no care as to whether it's necessary or sufficient.
I got confused on exercise 2: When working on my own, I used /Assassination to represent the assassination failing, is there any real difference between using AAF and /Assassination, and if so how can I tell when to put a negation on a statement? It seems intuitive to me that an assassination failing would be negation of an assassination succeeding.
#feedback sorry for the repetition in my feedback. Just want to flag that when I pause the video, the content goes away and I just see a white screen. This makes it challenging when I want to work through the exercise before the answer is read out loud. I'm tracking I can scroll down to read-along, just flagging my experience with video. Thanks for your consideration!
Question: even If the question were to put assination failure as the sufficient condition for giving the speech wouldn't it not matter? (Eg. "If the assination fails Amidala can give her speech" )because it says "CAN" Saying she CAN give her speech is very different from saying she WILL give her speech
I went about this in a completely different way, and still got the right answer (invalid conclusion). Can someone explain to me if this is luck? This is how I did it:
Based off my chained conditional, it is still not a valid conclusion to say the vote will not pass. It actually CAN pass if the assassination attempt fails, since I have the vote winning as a sufficient condition. Obviously, 7sage did something completely different. Is my line of thinking wrong?
Hi! Can anyone explain why, in question 1, you have to go all the way back to J, Jedi, and not F, Force user? I would have chosen A, is not a Force user, because Tom fails the necessary condition of having years of training. It's also true that if he is not a Force user, then he is also not a Jedi, which was the correct answer. But if the fails the next condition in the chain, why do you have to go all the way back to the front, J? Or do you? Thank you!! Lost here! :)
in an exam, for the first question, would it be better to choose A not a Force user or C not a Jedi? i initially chose the answer C because that is what i thought would be the inferred valid conclusion. yes A is also valid, but i thought it would not be the BEST answer since "Force user" is in the middle of the chain, while "Jedi" is in the beginning of the chain. in my head, i saw "not a Force user" as a sub conclusion and "not a Jedi" as a main conclusion, and chose the main conclusion. how do u go about choosing an answer between 2 valid conclusions?
cannot=G4 and unless=G3. So why is SAS being placed on the left side of the when the translation rule states we negate G4 it becomes necessary?? Struggling to understand the explanation on this one
yeah so we only know that the assassination attempt failed. But failing it doesn't trigger the sufficient condition. Just means IF she gave her speech it failed. No connection to it passing
the SAS --> AAF and SAS --> /P broke my brain. If the conditional logic sets up that if she gives her speech (no matter what), the vote will fail. I understand how it works when written out in lawgic, but how do the other conditional relationships cancel out that first one (that if she gives her speech, the vote WILL NOT pass)??
The group 3 rule is that you can choose either side, negate it, and put it to the left as a sufficient condition. Similarly, the rule for group 4 is that you choose either side, negate it, and put it to the right as the necessary condition.
Can someone explain why it has to be /AAF ->/SAS and can't be /SAS->/AAF?
at 8:08 i was confused because unless = negate sufficient, but i see with the double negation we just jumped a step ahead and flipped them. in case anyone got confused on that.
Just want to ask this for the purposes of not confusing opposite with negation:
"Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails."
In the example, the video made the choice to negate, "Amidala cannot deliver her speech." The lawgic we see is:
SAS -> AAF
However, I interpreted "the attempt to assassinate her fails," as already containing a negation (That is, the assassination failing is the negation of the assassination succeeding.) My lawgic looked like this:
SAS -> /A (where A is assassination.)
Does this work? Or have I confused the negation of failure with the opposite of failure?
/SAS -> AA (if she does not deliver her speech then the assassination attempt did not fail (it succeeded). Which we get from group 3 negate sufficient. Contrapositive follows that:
/AA -> SAS
And thus: /AA -> /V
If the assassination attempt failed, then the vote did not pass.
How is the conclusion invalid if we are to accept that the premises are true? I thought that because the AAF, she would give her speech because she is alive. I believe it depends on what question this is. If it was a weaken question then yes we can weaken the conclusion by saying there were other assassination attempts.
0
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!
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.
207 comments
sufficient (S) = if S happens then X must happen
necessary (N) = if N does not happen then X cannot happen
Interestingly enough, S not happening doesn't mean X won't happen and N happening does not mean X will happen. Which I think would have made total sense to me if you hadn't spent a bunch of exercises teaching me how to use the contrapositives of everything with no care as to whether it's necessary or sufficient.
I got confused on exercise 2: When working on my own, I used /Assassination to represent the assassination failing, is there any real difference between using AAF and /Assassination, and if so how can I tell when to put a negation on a statement? It seems intuitive to me that an assassination failing would be negation of an assassination succeeding.
#feedback sorry for the repetition in my feedback. Just want to flag that when I pause the video, the content goes away and I just see a white screen. This makes it challenging when I want to work through the exercise before the answer is read out loud. I'm tracking I can scroll down to read-along, just flagging my experience with video. Thanks for your consideration!
Question: even If the question were to put assination failure as the sufficient condition for giving the speech wouldn't it not matter? (Eg. "If the assination fails Amidala can give her speech" )because it says "CAN" Saying she CAN give her speech is very different from saying she WILL give her speech
I went about this in a completely different way, and still got the right answer (invalid conclusion). Can someone explain to me if this is luck? This is how I did it:
Deliver speech -> vote fails
/(deliver speech) -> assassination attempt fails
FACT: The assassination attempt failed.
Take the contrapositive of the first:
Vote wins -> /(deliver speech)
Create chained conditional:
Vote wins -> /(deliver speech) -> assassination attempt fails.
Based off my chained conditional, it is still not a valid conclusion to say the vote will not pass. It actually CAN pass if the assassination attempt fails, since I have the vote winning as a sufficient condition. Obviously, 7sage did something completely different. Is my line of thinking wrong?
Hi! Can anyone explain why, in question 1, you have to go all the way back to J, Jedi, and not F, Force user? I would have chosen A, is not a Force user, because Tom fails the necessary condition of having years of training. It's also true that if he is not a Force user, then he is also not a Jedi, which was the correct answer. But if the fails the next condition in the chain, why do you have to go all the way back to the front, J? Or do you? Thank you!! Lost here! :)
So apparently the english spoke to me better than the logic...
I honestly do not get the second questions at all. Why is it in that order? I had it written as
Assaination Fails-> Delivers Speech
or /Speech->/Assa. Fail
i feel like I got this intuitively and then translated to lawgic and messed up lol
For question 1, would it not be easier to take the contrapositive? So you can simply see the relationships connected to /YT (a.k.a /YT->/F->/J)
in an exam, for the first question, would it be better to choose A not a Force user or C not a Jedi? i initially chose the answer C because that is what i thought would be the inferred valid conclusion. yes A is also valid, but i thought it would not be the BEST answer since "Force user" is in the middle of the chain, while "Jedi" is in the beginning of the chain. in my head, i saw "not a Force user" as a sub conclusion and "not a Jedi" as a main conclusion, and chose the main conclusion. how do u go about choosing an answer between 2 valid conclusions?
uh, Andor spoilers???
cannot=G4 and unless=G3. So why is SAS being placed on the left side of the when the translation rule states we negate G4 it becomes necessary?? Struggling to understand the explanation on this one
yeah so we only know that the assassination attempt failed. But failing it doesn't trigger the sufficient condition. Just means IF she gave her speech it failed. No connection to it passing
the SAS --> AAF and SAS --> /P broke my brain. If the conditional logic sets up that if she gives her speech (no matter what), the vote will fail. I understand how it works when written out in lawgic, but how do the other conditional relationships cancel out that first one (that if she gives her speech, the vote WILL NOT pass)??
The group 3 rule is that you can choose either side, negate it, and put it to the left as a sufficient condition. Similarly, the rule for group 4 is that you choose either side, negate it, and put it to the right as the necessary condition.
Can someone explain why it has to be /AAF ->/SAS and can't be /SAS->/AAF?
Why cant Tom possess extraordinary discipline?
Jedi--> Force --> Years of training --> Extraordinary discipline.
Jedi--> Force --> Years of training --> (Tom is here). Extraordinary discipline.
Tom doesnt have years of tranning, but he can possess extraordinary discipline without having years of training.
A B and D can be true.
Is there time on the lsat to write LR questions into Lawgic? or should it be only for practice and intuitive on the test?
writing the contrapositive really helps!
at 8:08 i was confused because unless = negate sufficient, but i see with the double negation we just jumped a step ahead and flipped them. in case anyone got confused on that.
On that last example, if it was stated that someone is in Boston, we could come to the conclusion that they are in NYC, correct?
As someone who tends to overthink and draw my own assumptions using my own interpretations, translating has become a life savor.
Just want to ask this for the purposes of not confusing opposite with negation:
"Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails."
In the example, the video made the choice to negate, "Amidala cannot deliver her speech." The lawgic we see is:
SAS -> AAF
However, I interpreted "the attempt to assassinate her fails," as already containing a negation (That is, the assassination failing is the negation of the assassination succeeding.) My lawgic looked like this:
SAS -> /A (where A is assassination.)
Does this work? Or have I confused the negation of failure with the opposite of failure?
How is this logic wrong?
SAS -> /V
/SAS -> AA (if she does not deliver her speech then the assassination attempt did not fail (it succeeded). Which we get from group 3 negate sufficient. Contrapositive follows that:
/AA -> SAS
And thus: /AA -> /V
If the assassination attempt failed, then the vote did not pass.
How is the conclusion invalid if we are to accept that the premises are true? I thought that because the AAF, she would give her speech because she is alive. I believe it depends on what question this is. If it was a weaken question then yes we can weaken the conclusion by saying there were other assassination attempts.