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?
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.
Question 5 threw me off because I was trying to understand the first sentence as a sufficient and necessary condition. In reality, it is meant to be a statement that the ume is not a member of the set of "trees that bloom for three or more months".
I did what he did in the video and got the answers he got in the videos correct. But on the actual questions when I clicked view answer, I got it wrong.
#help For Q.4 my initial logic translation was the contrapositive /RSVP -> /I because I interpreter as the invite (I) as the negate necessary. Subsequently, Rudy affirmed the sufficient which triggers the necessary condition (/I). Is this the correct approach? I am confused.
Q2: He maps the first sentence as a conditional claim (Gods of Mt O -> Watch Olympics). But isn't that just membership in a set? Bc to map it that way implies the contrapositive is true, and I dont think that holds based on the sentence (/Watch Olympics -> /Gods of Mt O). What am I missing here?
0
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!
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.
498 comments
For two would the conclusion be he watches olympics and likes wasabi? Why just wasabi?
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.]
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
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?
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?
bruh i really said 'jackson is a non-swimmer' for the first one am i actually stupid or something
Wouldn't there be 2 conclusions for Q2??
Hermes watches the Olympics
and
Hermes likes to eat Wasabi?
why are these so easy compared to the actual questions i feel like it doesnt apply
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.
Question 5 threw me off because I was trying to understand the first sentence as a sufficient and necessary condition. In reality, it is meant to be a statement that the ume is not a member of the set of "trees that bloom for three or more months".
Confused on 3
I did what he did in the video and got the answers he got in the videos correct. But on the actual questions when I clicked view answer, I got it wrong.
#help For Q.4 my initial logic translation was the contrapositive /RSVP -> /I because I interpreter as the invite (I) as the negate necessary. Subsequently, Rudy affirmed the sufficient which triggers the necessary condition (/I). Is this the correct approach? I am confused.
Q2: He maps the first sentence as a conditional claim (Gods of Mt O -> Watch Olympics). But isn't that just membership in a set? Bc to map it that way implies the contrapositive is true, and I dont think that holds based on the sentence (/Watch Olympics -> /Gods of Mt O). What am I missing here?