In these kinds of questions, should we default to converting the argument to lawgic or rely on intuition first, lawgic second? I ask because (as an LSAT newbie) it seems that diagramming each question would take way too much time.
@LaneyWilliams Recently ran into the same issue and basically I think the answer is to first rely on intuition. If something gets too complex or "in the weeds", see if you can simplify the english and keep track of everything intuitively by doing that first. You can even use these translation rules to do the simplification. But if even after simplifying and trying to parse intuitively, you can't see whats going on, its time to go to lawgic, which will hopefully be quick now that you have simplified. Lawgic can also help verify if you have extra time I guess. But if you try to convert everything into Lawgic, you'll waste time on questions you could have answered more quickly with intuition.
Is it perfectly ok to disregard these formulas if we were able to filter through the arguments and correctly infer if they were valid or not on the first try?
@ThatsAmoree I would imagine not; while we're able to intuitively derive that an argument is incorrect without having to translate it into these Lawgic arguments, I believe the point of these exercises is to give us tools to break down arguments for when our intuition inevitably fails. While we can solve algebraic equations just by eyeballing them (2x = 12 is x = 6, which we could figure out without pen and paper), on a long-winded test that's meant to mentally exhaust us and drain our energy halfway through, our intuition might not be so sharp. So, Lawgic is meant to be both an alternate way to understand arguments as well as a fallback when our intuition is exhausted. While some are super geniuses whose intuition never fails, even super geniuses have safety nets!!
TLDR, no; these formulas are there to help us when our intuition fails!
Wishing you the best on your studies! Crush this test!!
coming back here from logical reasoning. It would be great to have all the review sheets+ short summaries of the lessons all in one place for quick review. I remember most of the material, just needed some reminders of key points without having to rewatch entire videos (even if on 1.7 speed) #feedback
@anjjredd yes anything to the right of the arrow is considered to be the necessary condition. But it's all in relation. So in A->B->C "B" is the necessary condition in relation to "A" but it is sufficient condition in relation to "C" since its the -> arrow pointing to "C". I read it in a comment I try to remember it as SUN. Sufficient, arrow is the "U" and "N" is the necessary condition.
In no way does it explain that since A has x, that therefore B has x. It's simply assuming that if A then B (A -> B), that this includes X is carried over to B...
Hi, I read xA as x is a member of the set A. Is that not correct? In the linked example for #1, the notation LJ is used to show Luke is a member of the Jedi set.
If x is a member of the set A and a is a subset of B then x is a member of the set B is it not?
Just a personal observation, I am finding for myself that there are some instances where Lawgic does simplify and other instances where it complicates.
(Remember, "unless" is a group 3 indicator. Pick an idea, negate that idea, then make that negated idea into a sufficient condition)
In this case, we'll just negate the J because it already had a negation to begin with. (One cannot become a Jedi UNLESS one possesses extraordinary discipline.)
It becomes J --> D.
(This is the same as A -> D, I just used my own signage)
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
26 comments
In these kinds of questions, should we default to converting the argument to lawgic or rely on intuition first, lawgic second? I ask because (as an LSAT newbie) it seems that diagramming each question would take way too much time.
@LaneyWilliams Recently ran into the same issue and basically I think the answer is to first rely on intuition. If something gets too complex or "in the weeds", see if you can simplify the english and keep track of everything intuitively by doing that first. You can even use these translation rules to do the simplification. But if even after simplifying and trying to parse intuitively, you can't see whats going on, its time to go to lawgic, which will hopefully be quick now that you have simplified. Lawgic can also help verify if you have extra time I guess. But if you try to convert everything into Lawgic, you'll waste time on questions you could have answered more quickly with intuition.
@danjpeach96 Thank you!
Simple as that hahah
Is it perfectly ok to disregard these formulas if we were able to filter through the arguments and correctly infer if they were valid or not on the first try?
@ThatsAmoree I would imagine not; while we're able to intuitively derive that an argument is incorrect without having to translate it into these Lawgic arguments, I believe the point of these exercises is to give us tools to break down arguments for when our intuition inevitably fails. While we can solve algebraic equations just by eyeballing them (2x = 12 is x = 6, which we could figure out without pen and paper), on a long-winded test that's meant to mentally exhaust us and drain our energy halfway through, our intuition might not be so sharp. So, Lawgic is meant to be both an alternate way to understand arguments as well as a fallback when our intuition is exhausted. While some are super geniuses whose intuition never fails, even super geniuses have safety nets!!
TLDR, no; these formulas are there to help us when our intuition fails!
Wishing you the best on your studies! Crush this test!!
coming back here from logical reasoning. It would be great to have all the review sheets+ short summaries of the lessons all in one place for quick review. I remember most of the material, just needed some reminders of key points without having to rewatch entire videos (even if on 1.7 speed) #feedback
Ah yes, Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens.
for the second formal argument is B the necessary conditional and A is the sufficient?
@anjjredd yes anything to the right of the arrow is considered to be the necessary condition. But it's all in relation. So in A->B->C "B" is the necessary condition in relation to "A" but it is sufficient condition in relation to "C" since its the -> arrow pointing to "C". I read it in a comment I try to remember it as SUN. Sufficient, arrow is the "U" and "N" is the necessary condition.
Valid Formal Argument 1: Conditional Argument
The sufficient condition is satisfied. Satisfying the sufficient condition yields to valid conclusions (guarantees the conclusion).
Premise 1: If it is a cat, then it is a mammal.
Premise 2: Doug is a cat.
Conclusion: Is it valid to conclude that Doug is a mammal?
Yes. Cats are a subset of mammals, the superset.
C→M
dC (Doug is a member of C)
Therefore: dC→M
Valid Formal Argument 2: Contrapositive Argument.
The necessary condition failed. Failing the necessary condition allows contraposing to draw the valid conclusion(s).
Premise 1: If it is a cat, then it is a mammal.
Premise 2: Doug is not a mammal.
Conclusion: Is it valid to conclude that Doug is not a cat?
Yes. Since Doug does not belong in the superset of mammals, Doug cannot be a cat.
C→M
/dM (Doug is not a member of M)
Therefore: /dM→/C
Thanks, Goat.
#help
In Argument #1, this is unclear.
In no way does it explain that since A has x, that therefore B has x. It's simply assuming that if A then B (A -> B), that this includes X is carried over to B...
A → B
X → A
X → A → B
-----
X → B
You can also think of it as:
If A, then B
x is a part of A
Therefore, x must also be a part of B
A → B:
- If I am at Lake Minnetonka (A), then I am in Minnesota (B)
xA:
- I was purified (x) in the waters of Lake Minnetonka (A)
------
xB:
- Therefore, I was purified in Minnesota
Also, x has A, not the other way around (same with B)
I think you are mistaking X "having" A for X "being" A/ X "being a subset" of A.
X is A...and A->B...therefore X--> B
I thought so to until I substituted words for the symbols.
A -> B
xA
-----
xB
All cats (a) are mammals (b). Jamie is a cat (xA). Therefore Jamie is a mammal (xB)
Hi, I read xA as x is a member of the set A. Is that not correct? In the linked example for #1, the notation LJ is used to show Luke is a member of the Jedi set.
If x is a member of the set A and a is a subset of B then x is a member of the set B is it not?
Yeah that works too, it's all semantics
X is A
vs.
X is a member of the set of A
I Love the Purple Rain reference,
Just a personal observation, I am finding for myself that there are some instances where Lawgic does simplify and other instances where it complicates.
agreed.
Cannot emphasize enough how much more I am appreciating this version of the core compared to version 1 thank you!!!
love ur username lol
Big agree.
For A>B>C>D remember that Unless in conditional logic is Group 3, which leads us to Negate Sufficient Condition.
So now we remove the unless. 'one cannot' becomes 'one can'. Why? The negated form of 'cannot' is 'can'.
"Therefore, if one can become Jedi (sufficient condition), then one possesses extraordinary discipline (necessary condition). A>D
/J --> D
Negate the J.
(Remember, "unless" is a group 3 indicator. Pick an idea, negate that idea, then make that negated idea into a sufficient condition)
In this case, we'll just negate the J because it already had a negation to begin with. (One cannot become a Jedi UNLESS one possesses extraordinary discipline.)
It becomes J --> D.
(This is the same as A -> D, I just used my own signage)