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
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...
Just a personal observation, I am finding for myself that there are some instances where Lawgic does simplify and other instances where it complicates.
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
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!
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.
20 comments
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?
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
#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...
Just a personal observation, I am finding for myself that there are some instances where Lawgic does simplify and other instances where it complicates.
Cannot emphasize enough how much more I am appreciating this version of the core compared to version 1 thank you!!!
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