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?
For Q3 there's a mistake. The answer in text says "The birds cannot sing unless pastries cook themselves" as an inference, but in the video, the inference is "if birds can sing, then pastries cook themselves." #feedback
“The birds cannot sing unless pastries cook themselves” and “if birds can sing, then pastries cook themselves" are logically equivalent and technically the same thing.
I did reaaaally good on this. I got every single one right. Second attempt at studying for the LSAT. If you're seeing this, it's your sign. You got this!
#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.
Does anyone have a trick to identify sufficiency and necessity? I understand them but when it comes to these question I get so confused and then don't know which formal argument to use....
For me, I always use the New York and America example.
(I) Conditional： If I am in New York (Sufficient), then I am in America(Necessary).
My reasoning: America is necessary because for you to be in Newyork you MUST be in America. The necessary is a requirement for the sufficient. Or you can think of subsets and Supersets. America/necessary is a superset, and New York/sufficient is a subset.
(ii) Contrapositive: If I am NOT in America, then I am NOT in New York.
My reasoning: Notice how I did not say "If I am not in New York, then I am not in America"? because New York is "in this relationship" is not a necessary condition. you could be in America and not be in New York, that is why one of the 3 traps states that we should not confuse sufficient for necessity. We also cannot say "if I am in America, then I am in Newyork" Why? because as one of the three traps stated, just because we satisfied the necessary condition, doesn't mean that we know the sufficient function.
I hope I wrote this in a way that makes sense and that this method helps you. Try again for this section and see if it works for you.
I thought the same thing, but I think some of these might be necessary for the logical reasoning portions and since there is going to be multiple LR sections, it might be helpful to understand the formal arguments in lawgic terms. #help
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??
@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
535 comments
I FINALLY GET IT!!!!
5/5. These seemed a lot easier than the last chaining questions but still happy with the progress
@MRod I agree!
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?
For Q3 there's a mistake. The answer in text says "The birds cannot sing unless pastries cook themselves" as an inference, but in the video, the inference is "if birds can sing, then pastries cook themselves." #feedback
“The birds cannot sing unless pastries cook themselves” and “if birds can sing, then pastries cook themselves" are logically equivalent and technically the same thing.
Noticed the same thing on Question 3 - the answer choice is different from the #feedback in the video.
/cook - /sing
Sing - cook
I see that now. Thanks.
Why do the answer explanations become shorter or non-existent when we get to this section, which is by far the hardest part of conditional logic?
I agree! Where are the video explanations as well. I'm having a hard time understanding this concept.
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
#feedback it would be helpful to have written or video explanations as others have said
I did reaaaally good on this. I got every single one right. Second attempt at studying for the LSAT. If you're seeing this, it's your sign. You got this!
This part is so confusing without the videos
again, please give us videos
It would be helpful if explanations existed.
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'
why are't there video explanations? or any explanations at all?
Agreed, video or even written explanations would be very helpful
Video explanations would be so helpful!
#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
@Cee🦋 I did the same thing. After watching the video, I finally understand group 4.
Does anyone have a trick to identify sufficiency and necessity? I understand them but when it comes to these question I get so confused and then don't know which formal argument to use....
#HELP
I second this ^ #help
For me, I always use the New York and America example.
(I) Conditional： If I am in New York (Sufficient), then I am in America(Necessary).
My reasoning: America is necessary because for you to be in Newyork you MUST be in America. The necessary is a requirement for the sufficient. Or you can think of subsets and Supersets. America/necessary is a superset, and New York/sufficient is a subset.
(ii) Contrapositive: If I am NOT in America, then I am NOT in New York.
My reasoning: Notice how I did not say "If I am not in New York, then I am not in America"? because New York is "in this relationship" is not a necessary condition. you could be in America and not be in New York, that is why one of the 3 traps states that we should not confuse sufficient for necessity. We also cannot say "if I am in America, then I am in Newyork" Why? because as one of the three traps stated, just because we satisfied the necessary condition, doesn't mean that we know the sufficient function.
I hope I wrote this in a way that makes sense and that this method helps you. Try again for this section and see if it works for you.
#feedback For the love of God could you define what the symbols mean in your answers?
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
If I am taking the August 2024 LSAT is it okay if I only lightly go over this? This seems like it is geared towards Logic Games.
#help
I thought the same thing, but I think some of these might be necessary for the logical reasoning portions and since there is going to be multiple LR sections, it might be helpful to understand the formal arguments in lawgic terms. #help
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??
5/5!!!
The feeling of satisfaction once you get this is so good
I need videos for 9,10,11, and 12 cause I seriously have no idea how these make sense. pls put videos on these lessons!! #feedback #help
The way I would have gotten a 5/5 if I just counted Dec-Jan was not 3 months… I just 😵💫 okay… lol
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 😂
Proud of my progress.