I got 4/5 the No confused me on the first but I remembered the rule after I missed it. #5 I got the answer I just didn't know how to express it in logic
@InderpalSingh In Question 5, only the second sentence has a relevant conditional relationship. The first sentence serves a similar purpose to "Andrew is a Jackson" in Question 1.
Our conditions:
Tree that blooms for three or more months (3+ tree)
Amenable to the tastes of the emperor (Amenable)
"Only" gives away their relationship. "3+ tree" is necessary while "Amenable" is sufficient.
In other words, if the tree is amenable to the tastes of the emperor, it must be one that blooms for three or more months, or
Amenable -> 3+ tree
Back to the first sentence. The ume blooms from December to January, meaning it blooms for at most 2 months, decidedly NOT three months.
Since the ume fails the necessary condition, it must fail the sufficient condition.
Amenable -> 3+ tree
ume /3+ tree
----------------
ume /Amenable
The ume is not amenable to the tastes of the emperor.
@Hanifa Same here boss, I had to physically count on my hands to make sure it was only 2 months 💀 . I pray I am caffinated enough on my test day to not fudge it up
#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?
@JiggityJack5 You can view the first conclusion as the contrapositive to the second. Negating each side and reversing them, you get "If pastries don't cook themselves, then birds cannot sing." The first conclusion is just another way of stating this contrapositive. So they mean the same thing :-)
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.
535 comments
5/5 im actually suprised but its starting to make sense
why is this so easy and then i get to the practice questions and i blank hahahah i feel like im too focused on what 'equations'
I got 4/5 the No confused me on the first but I remembered the rule after I missed it. #5 I got the answer I just didn't know how to express it in logic
@InderpalSingh In Question 5, only the second sentence has a relevant conditional relationship. The first sentence serves a similar purpose to "Andrew is a Jackson" in Question 1.
Our conditions:
Tree that blooms for three or more months (3+ tree)
Amenable to the tastes of the emperor (Amenable)
"Only" gives away their relationship. "3+ tree" is necessary while "Amenable" is sufficient.
In other words, if the tree is amenable to the tastes of the emperor, it must be one that blooms for three or more months, or
Amenable -> 3+ tree
Back to the first sentence. The ume blooms from December to January, meaning it blooms for at most 2 months, decidedly NOT three months.
Since the ume fails the necessary condition, it must fail the sufficient condition.
Amenable -> 3+ tree
ume /3+ tree
----------------
ume /Amenable
The ume is not amenable to the tastes of the emperor.
I got 5 right, however ... Would we not be assuming the Ume is a tree? And without that information can we really get this entailment??
4/5! #3 absolutely made no sense to me lol
5/5, too easy
5/5 not too much on me
omg 5/5!
Though I didn't lawgic it by formula I feel, it did feel very very intuitive though, as if my brain has been rewired without me knowing
5/5
5/5!
I translated 5 into Lawgic and it made sense, but my intuition made more sense here.
@jaydenca same! I think it is only useful to use logic when things do not make sense.
Sometimes when I break these down mechanically it makes it difficult other times intuition takes over. Anyone else have the same issue?
The way I would have gotten a 5/5 if I just counted Dec-Jan was not 3 months… I just 😵💫 okay… lol
for 3, why is "The birds cannot sing unless pastries cook themselves" a valid conclusion ??
This conclusion makes sense: If birds can sing, then pastries cook themselves
I dont get the other one.
@tst19 To me, it’s like contrapositive circle of some sorts.
If A occurs, B can occur.
A cannot occur unless B can occur.
So if it’s not possible for B to happen then A can’t happen because…. cycle continues
5/5 yeaaaa boi
what's helping me is saving a few of the skill builder questions to answer the next day.. to see what sticks and what needs to be reviewed again
God, why did I think from Dec-Jan would be three months?
@Hanifa Same here boss, I had to physically count on my hands to make sure it was only 2 months 💀 . I pray I am caffinated enough on my test day to not fudge it up
@Hanifa lmao same! I just assumed and when I clicked answer, I was like “what the heck?” Then I said oh 🤣 what a silly mistake
@HiGigi 😂
#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?
@JiggityJack5 You can view the first conclusion as the contrapositive to the second. Negating each side and reversing them, you get "If pastries don't cook themselves, then birds cannot sing." The first conclusion is just another way of stating this contrapositive. So they mean the same thing :-)
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.