I am still confused on why this is invalid. My understanding is that because SAS is sufficient, she could be doing other things that are not SAS and still satisfy AAF? Since the conclusion is based on the sufficient condition, which cannot always be true, therefor the conclusion is invalid?? Could someone explain this a little more?
the amidala example just feels so knit-picky, like she can only give her speech unless the assassination fails. the assassination fails. So you would think she could then give her speech, but i guess lsat logic is then no she could be doing a million other things because surviving doesn't guarantee that she gives a speech?
Was I wrong to go SAS-> /P and /A-> SAS and then combine to /A-> SAS -> /P? I noticed it didn't say she actually delivered the speech and got it right but felt I was following the group three unless rules here.
Maybe I just need more practice with lawgic. For both of the questions just reading in english it made sense and I got them both right. Lawgic only made them more convoluted and makes me second guess myself.
I am a bit confused about why the assassination failure isn't /AAF, since it is the negated sufficient.
I did write /A -> /DS, which I can see becomes DS -> A (which I thought didn't make sense realistically), but was stumped how after it's AAF and not /AAF
2:10 mark he states J->F is a sufficient condition yet he refers to the word "must" in the text. The previous courses show "must" is a necessary condition. Meaning, the correct way to show this should be F->J. BUT, this doesn't make sense in this context. Please advise
For the second question I put /assassinated instead of assassination fails. Can someone explain when to put a negation symbol on something and when not to.
I have to be in the Z superset to even be considered for the Y or Z subsets. Tom only has six months of training so he is not part of the Z superset. Since he is not part of Z there is no way he can be part of Y and since he can't be part of Y there is no way he could reach down to Z. If he wants to be able to reach Z he has to be part of Y, and to be part of Y he has to be part of Z.
Membership in the superset is not SUFFICIENT for membership in the subset.
Question 2
Sentence 1 says Ok, First thing we need for the vote to not pass is senator Amidala to give her speech.
If speech -> /Vote pass
Sentence 2 with group 3 ruled applied Says, if Amidala delivers her speech, than the assassins failed
if speech -> assassination failed
Sentence 3 says. Yo, she wasn't on the ship where we were trying to kill her. What does this mean? That the assassination failed
Assassination Failed
Sentence 4, the conclusion says, Ok, based off all of this, the vote did not pass.
Based off of this it's invalid because Valid means the conclusion follows when the premises are true. Here, we have no clue if the conclusion of the vote not passing follows. Hence, it is Invalid
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)??
2
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.
221 comments
I am still confused on why this is invalid. My understanding is that because SAS is sufficient, she could be doing other things that are not SAS and still satisfy AAF? Since the conclusion is based on the sufficient condition, which cannot always be true, therefor the conclusion is invalid?? Could someone explain this a little more?
the amidala example just feels so knit-picky, like she can only give her speech unless the assassination fails. the assassination fails. So you would think she could then give her speech, but i guess lsat logic is then no she could be doing a million other things because surviving doesn't guarantee that she gives a speech?
Was I wrong to go SAS-> /P and /A-> SAS and then combine to /A-> SAS -> /P? I noticed it didn't say she actually delivered the speech and got it right but felt I was following the group three unless rules here.
Maybe I just need more practice with lawgic. For both of the questions just reading in english it made sense and I got them both right. Lawgic only made them more convoluted and makes me second guess myself.
Great Lesson! Easy to understand if you follow along yourself. Loving these lessons ngl
I am a bit confused about why the assassination failure isn't /AAF, since it is the negated sufficient.
I did write /A -> /DS, which I can see becomes DS -> A (which I thought didn't make sense realistically), but was stumped how after it's AAF and not /AAF
2:10 mark he states J->F is a sufficient condition yet he refers to the word "must" in the text. The previous courses show "must" is a necessary condition. Meaning, the correct way to show this should be F->J. BUT, this doesn't make sense in this context. Please advise
For the second question I put /assassinated instead of assassination fails. Can someone explain when to put a negation symbol on something and when not to.
6MO of training is not years of training. Unclear why Tom would also not be ED. Argument is valid but untruthful.
Question 1)
X->Y > Z
I have to be in the Z superset to even be considered for the Y or Z subsets. Tom only has six months of training so he is not part of the Z superset. Since he is not part of Z there is no way he can be part of Y and since he can't be part of Y there is no way he could reach down to Z. If he wants to be able to reach Z he has to be part of Y, and to be part of Y he has to be part of Z.
Membership in the superset is not SUFFICIENT for membership in the subset.
Question 2
Sentence 1 says Ok, First thing we need for the vote to not pass is senator Amidala to give her speech.
If speech -> /Vote pass
Sentence 2 with group 3 ruled applied Says, if Amidala delivers her speech, than the assassins failed
if speech -> assassination failed
Sentence 3 says. Yo, she wasn't on the ship where we were trying to kill her. What does this mean? That the assassination failed
Assassination Failed
Sentence 4, the conclusion says, Ok, based off all of this, the vote did not pass.
Based off of this it's invalid because Valid means the conclusion follows when the premises are true. Here, we have no clue if the conclusion of the vote not passing follows. Hence, it is Invalid
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)??