#4 confused me. I was able to identify "No" as the Group 4 indicator (negate necessary), but I think my mistake was including the "no" into the first idea (No one is invited) because I ended up negating the "no" (making it positive) and came up with this:
/RSVP--> Invited
I need to remember not to include Group 4 indicators in the ideas.
I do pretty good on the practice questions, but when it comes to a real LSAT question I tend to get them wrong more than right, is anyone else having this issue?
@LindaLopez same here lmfao. these are watered down for sure. i think with practice though we will get better, maybe we should start doing conditional drills?
I dont understand how one can get the first unless conclusion given i the answer of example 3. If i got the second option it gave, will that serve me just as well when taking the actual LSAT, or do I need to figure out why I didnt get the first example as well?
For questions like #4, instead of writing out the Formal Argument #2 formula, can you just do: I --> R, take the contrapositive /R --> /I, and be like oh, that's Rudy. She did not RSVP so she wasn't invited. Like Ik the mapping out is probably the same, but is there a benefit drawing it his way?
@adzballroom Number 5 states that the ume (which I assume is some sort of tree or plant, though I'm not certain!) blooms from December to January. Apparently, the emperor likes trees/plants that bloom for three or more months at a time. Since the ume blooms for only December and January - two months - that means it blooms for less than the emperor prefers, and therefore, the ume is not a tree/plant the emperor likes. In the exact language of the question, we'd say, "The ume is not amenable to the tastes of the emperor."
Does this make any more sense? Did this clear anything up? Let me know!!
@adzballroom Ume only blooms from December to Jan (2 months). Trees that bloom 3+ months only taste good to the emperor. Since Ume only blooms 2 months, the taste is not amenable to the emp
@HudsonDuff@Laylay He said in the video that the LSAT will most likely draw the conclusion that uses the most premises, which would be the last necessary claim. However, they both are correct.
I'm getting really stuck with group 4 negate, necessary conditionals. For question four how do we get Invited > RSVP? I think I'm getting boggled down by the double-negatives...
"NO (indicator) one is invited (idea 1) who did not RSVP (idea 2)."
So then if the rule is to pick either, negate it, and make it necessary, then wouldn't you get this breakdown?
One is invited > /RSVP
Contrapositive: RSVP > /one is invited
I realize logically this is flawed -- if one RSVPs, you could make a strong inferrence that they were invited... Am I making sense? Where am I getting crossed up?
@AndrewPhillips I think I know where you're getting crossed up. The "No" is not a part of Idea 1 or Idea 2, the "No" is the solely an indicator. So, if you were to apply the rule to the idea of "One is invited" and "Did not RSVP," you would either get "One is invited -> /(Did not RSVP)" [which really means Invited -> RSVPd] OR you would get "Did not RSVP -> /One is invited." Does that make sense?
@AndrewPhillips to make it easier for myself, if it's a pretty straight-forward double negation like in questions 1 and 4, i will simply drop both negatives and continue from there.
ex: No Jacksons are non-swimmers
-Jacksons are swimmers
ex 2: No one is invited who did not RSVP
-One is invited if they did RSVP
that's what usually works for me but if that strategy is flawed in some cases please let me know!!!
@AshManicka I'd say in the context of the LSAT, yes! Though we know other things can bloom, since the question is specifically talking about trees, then we can assume that Ume is a tree.
@Daisy228 I think those are definitely two valid inferences based on the premises provided, even if the larger chain ultimately concludes that Hermes likes to eat wasabi!
I still don't get why the conclusion in Question 2 is "Hermes likes to eat wasabi" and not "Hermes watches the Olympics and likes to eat wasabi".. why is watching the Olympics not included in the conclusion if that makes sense??
So Just a pointer for anyone struggling.. some of these don't really need to be mapped out. For Example I noticed in the comments a lot of people were hung up on Question 5. I intuitively understood what the answer was before mapping it out. The Ume blooms from Dec-Jan, thats only 2 months. Only trees that bloom for 3 or more months are amenable to the emperor. Therefore, if Ume blooms for only 2 months it must be true that the Ume is not amenable to the tastes of the emperor. It's below the 3-month rule based on the set of facts. I hope this helps somewhat. We're all in this together, we got this!
I am so lost that I dont even know what to ask for help on. I feel like I don't understand any of it. Is it really needed to learn the lawgic? Or can I just skip it? I feel like I just want to give up.
@ctrue22 Hi, Charlotte! Don't give up. I was feeling so lost too, but things are starting to get a little clearer. Slow is fast. Take your time learning the groups (1-4).
When you see if, when, where, all, every, any, THE ONLY, put the idea that comes right after that word/those words in the sufficient position.
group 1 > necessary
When you see only, only if, only when, only where, always, must, put the idea that comes right after the word/those words in the necessary position.
sufficient > group 2
When you see or, unless, until, without, pick either idea and negate it, then make it sufficient.
/idea > necessary
When you see no, none, not both, cannot, pick either idea and negate it, then make it necessary.
sufficient > /idea
You can then take the contrapositive of all of these, where you negate and flip the ideas around the arrow.
These are the very simple building blocks I'm trying to drill into my head to start. Something that is helpful for me is to make a handful of my own sentences per group and try to grasp them that way.
@CheyenneBandy this is really helpful! for groups 3 and 4 do you negate only the idea and keep everything non negated? so it's not like finding the contrapositive?
@anjjredd For groups 3 and 4 you can negate either idea, but only the 1 you choose to make the sufficient (group 3) or necessary (group 4) condition. The other side is not negated, which is the difference from the contrapositive where you negate both sides!
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.
512 comments
#4 confused me. I was able to identify "No" as the Group 4 indicator (negate necessary), but I think my mistake was including the "no" into the first idea (No one is invited) because I ended up negating the "no" (making it positive) and came up with this:
/RSVP--> Invited
I need to remember not to include Group 4 indicators in the ideas.
You did it right, but you executed the translation rule incorrectly. I've made the same mistake.
@Cee🦋
"No one is invited who did not RSVP. Rudy did not RSVP."
Take the idea (invited) & negate it (not invited), then make it the necessary condition
/RSVP-->/invited = invited--> RSVP
r/RSVP
r/invited
NYC-->USA
r/USA
r/NYC
@Cee🦋 made the same mistake
I do pretty good on the practice questions, but when it comes to a real LSAT question I tend to get them wrong more than right, is anyone else having this issue?
@LindaLopez I'm right there with yo
@LindaLopez same here lmfao. these are watered down for sure. i think with practice though we will get better, maybe we should start doing conditional drills?
I dont understand how one can get the first unless conclusion given i the answer of example 3. If i got the second option it gave, will that serve me just as well when taking the actual LSAT, or do I need to figure out why I didnt get the first example as well?
For questions like #4, instead of writing out the Formal Argument #2 formula, can you just do: I --> R, take the contrapositive /R --> /I, and be like oh, that's Rudy. She did not RSVP so she wasn't invited. Like Ik the mapping out is probably the same, but is there a benefit drawing it his way?
Can anyone please explain who you figured out number 5? The video just confused more....
@adzballroom Number 5 states that the ume (which I assume is some sort of tree or plant, though I'm not certain!) blooms from December to January. Apparently, the emperor likes trees/plants that bloom for three or more months at a time. Since the ume blooms for only December and January - two months - that means it blooms for less than the emperor prefers, and therefore, the ume is not a tree/plant the emperor likes. In the exact language of the question, we'd say, "The ume is not amenable to the tastes of the emperor."
Does this make any more sense? Did this clear anything up? Let me know!!
Good luck on your studies, GOAT!
@adzballroom Ume only blooms from December to Jan (2 months). Trees that bloom 3+ months only taste good to the emperor. Since Ume only blooms 2 months, the taste is not amenable to the emp
For two would the conclusion be he watches olympics and likes wasabi? Why just wasabi?
@HudsonDuff I'm wondering this too..
@HudsonDuff @Laylay He said in the video that the LSAT will most likely draw the conclusion that uses the most premises, which would be the last necessary claim. However, they both are correct.
@NoraElkhyati Helpful, thanks!
Why is it that question 3 we disregard the pastries do cook themselves? Can't we say pastries cannot cook themselves unless magicians are real?
[This comment was deleted.]
@DesignedSpaceRock75 Same I felt like it was harder to translate into lawgic on paper than just letting my brain do it.
Proud of my progress.
To me these were easier to put together when I did not put them into logic but just let my brain do its thing.
remember!!!
"No X are non-Y" is equivalent to "All X are Y"
5/5. These seemed a lot easier than the last chaining questions but still happy with the progress
@MRod I agree!
I'm getting really stuck with group 4 negate, necessary conditionals. For question four how do we get Invited > RSVP? I think I'm getting boggled down by the double-negatives...
"NO (indicator) one is invited (idea 1) who did not RSVP (idea 2)."
So then if the rule is to pick either, negate it, and make it necessary, then wouldn't you get this breakdown?
One is invited > /RSVP
Contrapositive: RSVP > /one is invited
I realize logically this is flawed -- if one RSVPs, you could make a strong inferrence that they were invited... Am I making sense? Where am I getting crossed up?
@AndrewPhillips I think I know where you're getting crossed up. The "No" is not a part of Idea 1 or Idea 2, the "No" is the solely an indicator. So, if you were to apply the rule to the idea of "One is invited" and "Did not RSVP," you would either get "One is invited -> /(Did not RSVP)" [which really means Invited -> RSVPd] OR you would get "Did not RSVP -> /One is invited." Does that make sense?
@AndrewPhillips to make it easier for myself, if it's a pretty straight-forward double negation like in questions 1 and 4, i will simply drop both negatives and continue from there.
ex: No Jacksons are non-swimmers
-Jacksons are swimmers
ex 2: No one is invited who did not RSVP
-One is invited if they did RSVP
that's what usually works for me but if that strategy is flawed in some cases please let me know!!!
@yam great tip!
5/5! Awesome!
The ume fails the necessary condition (blooming for 3+ months) so it must fail the sufficient condition (amenable to tastes)
for 5, how do these
/3+ months > ume
amenable > 3+ months
AKA
/A>B
or
/B>A
C> A
mean B>/C?
5/5
For question #5 you have to assume that an Ume is a tree, is that an assumption that a reasonable person would make without prior context?
@AshManicka I'd say in the context of the LSAT, yes! Though we know other things can bloom, since the question is specifically talking about trees, then we can assume that Ume is a tree.
bruh i really said 'jackson is a non-swimmer' for the first one am i actually stupid or something
@FelipeCaceres-Cambero i did too lollll
Wouldn't there be 2 conclusions for Q2??
Hermes watches the Olympics
and
Hermes likes to eat Wasabi?
@Daisy228 That was my thinking too.
@Daisy228 I think those are definitely two valid inferences based on the premises provided, even if the larger chain ultimately concludes that Hermes likes to eat wasabi!
why are these so easy compared to the actual questions i feel like it doesnt apply
@tylersligh to get you familiar with the process. if it's really easy for you, that's a good thing! it isn't the case for everyone haha
five fo five baby lfg
I still don't get why the conclusion in Question 2 is "Hermes likes to eat wasabi" and not "Hermes watches the Olympics and likes to eat wasabi".. why is watching the Olympics not included in the conclusion if that makes sense??
So Just a pointer for anyone struggling.. some of these don't really need to be mapped out. For Example I noticed in the comments a lot of people were hung up on Question 5. I intuitively understood what the answer was before mapping it out. The Ume blooms from Dec-Jan, thats only 2 months. Only trees that bloom for 3 or more months are amenable to the emperor. Therefore, if Ume blooms for only 2 months it must be true that the Ume is not amenable to the tastes of the emperor. It's below the 3-month rule based on the set of facts. I hope this helps somewhat. We're all in this together, we got this!
I am so lost that I dont even know what to ask for help on. I feel like I don't understand any of it. Is it really needed to learn the lawgic? Or can I just skip it? I feel like I just want to give up.
@ctrue22 Hi, Charlotte! Don't give up. I was feeling so lost too, but things are starting to get a little clearer. Slow is fast. Take your time learning the groups (1-4).
When you see if, when, where, all, every, any, THE ONLY, put the idea that comes right after that word/those words in the sufficient position.
group 1 > necessary
When you see only, only if, only when, only where, always, must, put the idea that comes right after the word/those words in the necessary position.
sufficient > group 2
When you see or, unless, until, without, pick either idea and negate it, then make it sufficient.
/idea > necessary
When you see no, none, not both, cannot, pick either idea and negate it, then make it necessary.
sufficient > /idea
You can then take the contrapositive of all of these, where you negate and flip the ideas around the arrow.
These are the very simple building blocks I'm trying to drill into my head to start. Something that is helpful for me is to make a handful of my own sentences per group and try to grasp them that way.
You got this. Remember why you started!
@CheyenneBandy this is really helpful! for groups 3 and 4 do you negate only the idea and keep everything non negated? so it's not like finding the contrapositive?
@anjjredd For groups 3 and 4 you can negate either idea, but only the 1 you choose to make the sufficient (group 3) or necessary (group 4) condition. The other side is not negated, which is the difference from the contrapositive where you negate both sides!
@angantous tysm!