Does anyone advise memorizing the indicators (and their categories) although they are under/overinclusive? Or is practice a better strategy to getting the hang of these to avoid constantly referring to my notes?
Is this just confusing sufficient for necessity? The way I see it as an invalid conclusion is because we don't know if she delivered her speech, we just know that the assassination attempt failed.
For simple terms/understanding, is the second problem invalid because it is 'assuming' she would deliver her speech? If there was a premise that said, "If the assassination attempt fails, then she will deliver her speech". Would that therefore make it a valid conclusion? This is how I understood it...
My gut instinct was that we couldn't say for certain that the bomb on her starship was the assassination attempt on her... not that she might not have given the speech...
In question 2, since the necessary condition is what is stated and it does not refer to the sufficient condition. We cannot infer whether SAS or /p is true. So is that why we have an invalid conclusion?
I get Lawgic, except for the "unless" sort of stuff, the group 2 rules. I feel like I can never properly identify what needs to be negated or what is just natural.
I got the answer in my head, but found the lawgic confusing with nothing to ad. That said, I hope that learning/memorizing the process, as described, will help with questions I might struggle with. I guess the symbols did narrow the frame to a single key question about one of the premises, and that could be helpful.
i think the reason why i got the second exercise wrong because of the statement saying that based on the information alone, is the conclusion valid. the information given (assassination attempt failed and that was the only the written to be a factor in the vote not passing), to me, makes the conclusion valid. this is hard!
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!
4
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.
237 comments
please remind me to go back to this
Does anyone advise memorizing the indicators (and their categories) although they are under/overinclusive? Or is practice a better strategy to getting the hang of these to avoid constantly referring to my notes?
Is this just confusing sufficient for necessity? The way I see it as an invalid conclusion is because we don't know if she delivered her speech, we just know that the assassination attempt failed.
Writing the contrapositive for q1 helped me a lot
For simple terms/understanding, is the second problem invalid because it is 'assuming' she would deliver her speech? If there was a premise that said, "If the assassination attempt fails, then she will deliver her speech". Would that therefore make it a valid conclusion? This is how I understood it...
My gut instinct was that we couldn't say for certain that the bomb on her starship was the assassination attempt on her... not that she might not have given the speech...
In question 2, since the necessary condition is what is stated and it does not refer to the sufficient condition. We cannot infer whether SAS or /p is true. So is that why we have an invalid conclusion?
I get Lawgic, except for the "unless" sort of stuff, the group 2 rules. I feel like I can never properly identify what needs to be negated or what is just natural.
I got the answer in my head, but found the lawgic confusing with nothing to ad. That said, I hope that learning/memorizing the process, as described, will help with questions I might struggle with. I guess the symbols did narrow the frame to a single key question about one of the premises, and that could be helpful.
i think the reason why i got the second exercise wrong because of the statement saying that based on the information alone, is the conclusion valid. the information given (assassination attempt failed and that was the only the written to be a factor in the vote not passing), to me, makes the conclusion valid. this is hard!
Lawgic is still confusing to me too.
I am highly confused with lawgic, I had it and then took a little break and came back and lost it all.
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!