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?
@jbucholz My understanding is that you are correct
If I'm assassinated, I am dead, therefore there is no possibility I can give a speech. It is necessary that I am alive
That doesn't mean that I do give the speech, I could get lost on the way to the Senate chamber and miss my time. I could get cold feet, I could get sick. In all those instances, I survived the assassination attempt, but still did not give the speech.
"You will not be hungry at bed time if you eat your dinner. Dinner is only served at 7. You cannot eat dinner unless you make it home by 7."
Your making it home by 7 doesn't mean you eat dinner, but its necessary for you to. You cannot conclude
"Home by 7-> Not hungry at bed time"
because maybe you get home by 7 but lose your appetite, maybe your allergic to whats being served, making you hungry when you go to bed. Home by 7 is necessary, but not sufficient
But you can conclude "/home by 7 -> /Not hungry at bed time" because home by 7 is necessary to eat dinner
Diagramming came in clutch for Exercise 2. Intuitively (and wrongly), I thought the conclusion was valid. However, diagramming showed that if the necessary condition occurs, it does NOT guarantee that the sufficient does or does not occur.
The sufficient condition guarantees the necessary condition AND
Failure of the necessary condition guarantees failure of the sufficient condition.
We do NOT know what happens if the necessary DOES occur.
I find it harder translating into logic than reading the stimulus sometimes... I think my challenges for the LSAT may rely on understanding what they're asking me to figure out. The logic itself makes sense to me just because the assassination failed doesn't mean she's going to give her speech they're may be other factors...
I see how this can trick people because we read between the lines normally. But this test wants us to play it straight and just think with what we are told and given only, without implying anything else.
What helped me to understand was: Just because the assassination failed does not mean that senator Amidala gave her speech. It was just necessary for her to give her speech, but there might have been many other reasons for her not to give it, much less lead to the fact that the vote did not pass. There is not enough information to conclude that the vote did not pass because there is not enough information to know for sure that Amidala gave her speech. The condition of HER BEING ALIVE/NOT KILLED was necessary for her to give her speech (obviously) but that does not mean that she gave it.
This unit has essentially taught be my intuition is a coin flips and so I should never rely on it an always diagram because that's the only way I have been sure to get these right... sigh...
@MJ No seriously, i thuoght number 2 was valid because i mean... if this were a convo with someone it'd be safe to ASSUME shorty would be giving her speech, but this is not a regular convo with assumption based conclusions lol
We’re currently adding videos for our CCv2 Foundation lessons; some videos are already available. Unfortunately, we're unable to provide specific estimates or ETAs for the completion of these videos. Our team is working diligently to ensure that each new feature meets our high quality and user experience standards, which means development times can vary.
In the meantime, you can switch to CCv1, which has a complete set of videos. To switch to CCv1, click "Switch to V1" near the top of the Syllabus page. See the sample screenshot below:
Our goal is to support your learning process in a way that best suits your needs. Please know that we're here to assist you every step of the way, so please feel free to let us know if you have any further questions.
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.
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.
@sheilar2003 honestly I feel like in this case, that wouldn't be a wrong way to do it as long as it makes sense to you and you reach the same determination in the end.
306 comments
We KNOW something if:
Necessary condition FAILS to occur
Sufficient condition OCCURS
WE DON'T KNOW something if:
Necessary Condition OCCURS
Sufficient condition FAILS to occur
@Cee🦋 This makes so much sense ur amazing
@Cee🦋 Hi, can you please use this in an example? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Thank you!
I keep going back to the cat and mammal examples.
ex. Tom is not a mammal. We know for sure then that Tom is not a cat because being a mammal is 100% required for being a cat.
ex. Tom is a cat. We know for sure that Tom is also a mammal because being a cat is sufficient enough info to know Tom is 100% a mammal.
ex. Tom is a mammal. Well that doesnt guarantee anything because Tom could still be a human or dog or whatever other mammal.
ex. Tom is not a cat. Again, doesnt guarantee anything cause Tom could still be another type of mammal.
maybe the lessons have been working, but in this case the lawgic def overcomplicated a concept that made complete sense in English.
i feel like I got this intuitively and then translated to lawgic and messed up lol
Failing a sufficient condition DOES NOT mean they CANT meet the necessary condition.
Failing the necessary condition DOES mean that they CANT meet the sufficient condition.
Meeting a necessary condition DOES NOT mean that they meet the sufficient condition.
Meeting a sufficient condition DOES mean that they meet the necessary condition.
helps me to just think about the necessary being the big bubble and sufficient being the small bubble whenever possible
@komododragon Thank youu
This has been really hard for me. Really hoping that with enough practice and time it will finally stick lol
lost me big time
idk I feel like this may be overcomplicating it
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?
@jbucholz My understanding is that you are correct
If I'm assassinated, I am dead, therefore there is no possibility I can give a speech. It is necessary that I am alive
That doesn't mean that I do give the speech, I could get lost on the way to the Senate chamber and miss my time. I could get cold feet, I could get sick. In all those instances, I survived the assassination attempt, but still did not give the speech.
"You will not be hungry at bed time if you eat your dinner. Dinner is only served at 7. You cannot eat dinner unless you make it home by 7."
Your making it home by 7 doesn't mean you eat dinner, but its necessary for you to. You cannot conclude
"Home by 7-> Not hungry at bed time"
because maybe you get home by 7 but lose your appetite, maybe your allergic to whats being served, making you hungry when you go to bed. Home by 7 is necessary, but not sufficient
But you can conclude "/home by 7 -> /Not hungry at bed time" because home by 7 is necessary to eat dinner
Failing a sufficient condition does not yield any valid conclusions, i.e., it does not say anything about the necessary condition
This feels very very important
@AliLazim I like this sentence this is helpful, thanks
Diagramming came in clutch for Exercise 2. Intuitively (and wrongly), I thought the conclusion was valid. However, diagramming showed that if the necessary condition occurs, it does NOT guarantee that the sufficient does or does not occur.
The sufficient condition guarantees the necessary condition AND
Failure of the necessary condition guarantees failure of the sufficient condition.
We do NOT know what happens if the necessary DOES occur.
I find it harder translating into logic than reading the stimulus sometimes... I think my challenges for the LSAT may rely on understanding what they're asking me to figure out. The logic itself makes sense to me just because the assassination failed doesn't mean she's going to give her speech they're may be other factors...
Lawgic is still confusing to me too.
I see how this can trick people because we read between the lines normally. But this test wants us to play it straight and just think with what we are told and given only, without implying anything else.
1000% AGREE!!
literally wants us to keep it surface level.
almost like briefing a case, only use the facts provided to you; don't imply facts not provided.
What helped me to understand was: Just because the assassination failed does not mean that senator Amidala gave her speech. It was just necessary for her to give her speech, but there might have been many other reasons for her not to give it, much less lead to the fact that the vote did not pass. There is not enough information to conclude that the vote did not pass because there is not enough information to know for sure that Amidala gave her speech. The condition of HER BEING ALIVE/NOT KILLED was necessary for her to give her speech (obviously) but that does not mean that she gave it.
This unit has essentially taught be my intuition is a coin flips and so I should never rely on it an always diagram because that's the only way I have been sure to get these right... sigh...
@MJ No seriously, i thuoght number 2 was valid because i mean... if this were a convo with someone it'd be safe to ASSUME shorty would be giving her speech, but this is not a regular convo with assumption based conclusions lol
I am highly confused with lawgic, I had it and then took a little break and came back and lost it all.
This lesson was very confusing :/
Whenever you're dealing with logic chains like these, it helps a ton to remember these rules of thumb:
Failing a condition negates everything to its left. (<---)
Satisfying a condition triggers everything to its right. (--->)
@Dexterity Hey! Do you think you can give me an example of this?
Thank you.
@paligrrl Picture this chain:
A --> B --> C
Failing B yields the inference that A, which is left of B, is also failed, because that's how sufficiency/necessity works. If A > B, then /B > /A.
Satisfying B yields the inference that C, which is right of B, is also satisfied, because that's also how sufficiency/necessity works.
@Dexterity Thank you sm!! :)
making a video or two on this concept would help students
Hi there,
Thank you for your feedback.
We’re currently adding videos for our CCv2 Foundation lessons; some videos are already available. Unfortunately, we're unable to provide specific estimates or ETAs for the completion of these videos. Our team is working diligently to ensure that each new feature meets our high quality and user experience standards, which means development times can vary.
In the meantime, you can switch to CCv1, which has a complete set of videos. To switch to CCv1, click "Switch to V1" near the top of the Syllabus page. See the sample screenshot below:
Our goal is to support your learning process in a way that best suits your needs. Please know that we're here to assist you every step of the way, so please feel free to let us know if you have any further questions.
I refuse to do this caveman language
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.
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.
@sheilar2003 honestly I feel like in this case, that wouldn't be a wrong way to do it as long as it makes sense to you and you reach the same determination in the end.
Time of irritation, 9:09 a.m...
It's a good thing I like Star Wars. Seems like 7Sage does too.