I was struggling with this for a while but I think it finally clicked so I am leaving this here.
take the contrapositive if you are unsure. for example
-> The students who mastered logic saw improvements in their PrepTest scores.
my initial thought the first time was Improvements -> mastering test scores and I obviously got it wrong, so I looked up some examples on YouTube that helped
think of a red object if I were to write in lawgic:
color -> red, which would read as color is sufficient for red, now if I take the contrapositive /red->/color this idea can't be right, because if there's no red there is no color doesn't makes sense. it could be blue, orange, yellow, etc. now we do the opposite: red -> color, red is sufficient for color, take the contra positive: /color -> /red, if no color then it can't be red, now this makes more sense, right, because it's either there is color or not, there can be no substitutes.
now applying this to the example:
I took improvements -> mastering test scores took the contrapositive /mastering logic -> /improve, but this can't be true, because mastering logic can be substituted what if their test scores improved because of a tutor, maybe the teacher handed out extra credit, maybe covid 2027 came out and they could use chatgpt to answer everything idk all I know is that its not plausible to say just because this one thing did not happen does that mean that you did not improve.
now for the right answer:
mastering logic -> improvements
/improvements -> /mastering logic applying that same logic that I did for the wrong answer with the substitution could improvements have a substitute either than if they did or not? no of course not stagnant? not improved. decreased? not improve its either or, which means that improvements are required on mastering logic, but mastering logic isnt the ONLY thing to improve test score.
being a color is REQUIRED for a red object, but being a red object isnt the ONLY color for the object to be. I hope this helps someone!
Example 1: “An engaging plot will guarantee a novel’s commercial success.”
“Engaging plot” (sufficient condition) & “novel’s commercial success” (necessary condition) → we know this because of the phrase [will guarantee].
Plot → Success
Example 2: “Mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicators.”
“Mastering conditional logic” (sufficient indicator) & “some amount of memorizing conditional indicators” (necessary condition) → we know this because of the phrase [requires].
Mastery → Memorization
Example 3: ‘The students who mastered logic saw improvements in their PrepTest scores.”
“Students who mastered logic” (sufficient indicator) & “improvements in their PrepTest scores” (necessary condition)
subject → predicate
Mastery → Improve
Example 4: “The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace.”
“Kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade” (subject/sufficient condition) & “foreign policies that aim to secure peace.” (predicate/ necessary condition)
I don't really see how the Westeros example is a conditional statement. and does the subject --> predicate thing work on every example? or just those without indicators
Something that helps me (but is also not foolproof) is by trying to insert conditional indicators without changing the rest of the wording when applicable, such as "[all] students who mastered logic..." Rephrasing it altogether can also help but it's riskier.
i thought we were told that the idea immediately following the indicator is the necessary condition, so how is the second sentence still the same plot -> success and not success -> plot ?
Do sufficient and necessary conditions relate to using an active or passive voice? For instance the subject being acted upon, or if the subject receives the action.
I have a problem with continually mixing up my necessary and sufficient conditions - I think it stems from my urge to think of these sentences linearly - for example :
mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicators.
every bone in my body tells me that "mastering conditional logic" is the necessary condition, as it is a direct result of "memorizing conditional indicators" this can usually be tamed by translating to Lawgic using indicator words, but without the indicator words available, I need to restructure my thought process - does anyone have any tips on how to avoid thinking in these terms?
I am getting confused about the "guarantee" concept. In the earlier lessons, I believe it was stated that "the sufficient concept is strong enough to guarantee the conclusion and the necessary concept, if not true, the argument falls apart". It was also said that sufficiency = subsets and necessity = supersets. How does that work within this lesson? Maybe I need to start this entire conditional logic section over, but when I start to think I understand it, the new comparisons and words trip me up.
Why couldn't it be: if you saw improvements -> mastered logic. I feel like improvements would be sufficient to master logic. Mastering logic would be necessary to see improvements? Why would Mastering logic be sufficient for seeing improvements? aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I think its less about memorizing what necessarily comes AFTER the conditional word, but having a good grasp of referential phrasing to understand what the conditional indicator is for, regardless of order.
the video has different lawgic than the text or am I trippin?
1
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.
112 comments
I was struggling with this for a while but I think it finally clicked so I am leaving this here.
take the contrapositive if you are unsure. for example
-> The students who mastered logic saw improvements in their PrepTest scores.
my initial thought the first time was Improvements -> mastering test scores and I obviously got it wrong, so I looked up some examples on YouTube that helped
think of a red object if I were to write in lawgic:
color -> red, which would read as color is sufficient for red, now if I take the contrapositive /red->/color this idea can't be right, because if there's no red there is no color doesn't makes sense. it could be blue, orange, yellow, etc. now we do the opposite: red -> color, red is sufficient for color, take the contra positive: /color -> /red, if no color then it can't be red, now this makes more sense, right, because it's either there is color or not, there can be no substitutes.
now applying this to the example:
I took improvements -> mastering test scores took the contrapositive /mastering logic -> /improve, but this can't be true, because mastering logic can be substituted what if their test scores improved because of a tutor, maybe the teacher handed out extra credit, maybe covid 2027 came out and they could use chatgpt to answer everything idk all I know is that its not plausible to say just because this one thing did not happen does that mean that you did not improve.
now for the right answer:
mastering logic -> improvements
/improvements -> /mastering logic applying that same logic that I did for the wrong answer with the substitution could improvements have a substitute either than if they did or not? no of course not stagnant? not improved. decreased? not improve its either or, which means that improvements are required on mastering logic, but mastering logic isnt the ONLY thing to improve test score.
being a color is REQUIRED for a red object, but being a red object isnt the ONLY color for the object to be. I hope this helps someone!
I find this quite confusing. I still seem to be confusing sufficient and necessary:
eg. The students who mastered logic saw improvements in their PrepTest scores.
To master logic it is necessary to see improvements on your test score
Master logic -> See improvements
Couldn't it also be that in order to see improvements its necessary to master logic?
See improvements -> Master logic
---------------------------------------------------------
eg. An engaging plot will guarantee a novel's commercial success.
I see an engaging plot as necessary to guarantee commercial success.
success -> engaging plot
But the answer is the opposite.
---------------------------------------------------------
eg. Some amount of memorizing conditional indicators is required to master conditional logic.
In my mind, the memorization aspect is necessary to master conditional logic.
Master conditional logic -> Memorization
I have notes:
Example 1: “An engaging plot will guarantee a novel’s commercial success.”
“Engaging plot” (sufficient condition) & “novel’s commercial success” (necessary condition) → we know this because of the phrase [will guarantee].
Plot → Success
Example 2: “Mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicators.”
“Mastering conditional logic” (sufficient indicator) & “some amount of memorizing conditional indicators” (necessary condition) → we know this because of the phrase [requires].
Mastery → Memorization
Example 3: ‘The students who mastered logic saw improvements in their PrepTest scores.”
“Students who mastered logic” (sufficient indicator) & “improvements in their PrepTest scores” (necessary condition)
subject → predicate
Mastery → Improve
Example 4: “The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace.”
“Kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade” (subject/sufficient condition) & “foreign policies that aim to secure peace.” (predicate/ necessary condition)
Subject → Predicate
Trade → Peace
I literally read it as some "trade support foreign policies" instead of seeing support as the main verb lol
I don't really see how the Westeros example is a conditional statement. and does the subject --> predicate thing work on every example? or just those without indicators
Something that helps me (but is also not foolproof) is by trying to insert conditional indicators without changing the rest of the wording when applicable, such as "[all] students who mastered logic..." Rephrasing it altogether can also help but it's riskier.
I thought the "Let's Review" part of the video was another example so I started finding the subject predicate of it 😂😭
this lesson was fun
i thought we were told that the idea immediately following the indicator is the necessary condition, so how is the second sentence still the same plot -> success and not success -> plot ?
Do sufficient and necessary conditions relate to using an active or passive voice? For instance the subject being acted upon, or if the subject receives the action.
Hmmmm. Yeah, no. I'm taking my Webster's dictionary to the LSAT as part as my accomodation.
I have been having trouble grasping this concept, but this video has helped me tremendously.
brain mush
I am definitely getting confused in more complicated sufficient and necessary conditions.
Hopefully more practice equals more accuracy.
so does this mean in these basically the subject is the sufficient and the predicate is the necessary?? im lost
I have a problem with continually mixing up my necessary and sufficient conditions - I think it stems from my urge to think of these sentences linearly - for example :
mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicators.
every bone in my body tells me that "mastering conditional logic" is the necessary condition, as it is a direct result of "memorizing conditional indicators" this can usually be tamed by translating to Lawgic using indicator words, but without the indicator words available, I need to restructure my thought process - does anyone have any tips on how to avoid thinking in these terms?
The subject -> predicate was a lightbulb moment. Thank you for explaining it that way!
Would you say a good idea is that the sufficient clause is the main point that is "doing" the work? While necessary receives the work?
What's really helped me is forcing "if, then" to fit in the sentence. Not sure if this is a bad habit or not, but for example:
"The students who mastered logic saw improvements in their PrepTest scores."
What I did for this was intuitively divide up the sentence into the subject and predicate, then fit "If" and "Then" before them, resulting in:
"if you are a student who mastered logic, then you saw improvements to your PrepTest score"
It's really a backwards way of doing essentially the same thing described in this video, but I've found it to be much more intuitive for myself
Manifesting 180
I am getting confused about the "guarantee" concept. In the earlier lessons, I believe it was stated that "the sufficient concept is strong enough to guarantee the conclusion and the necessary concept, if not true, the argument falls apart". It was also said that sufficiency = subsets and necessity = supersets. How does that work within this lesson? Maybe I need to start this entire conditional logic section over, but when I start to think I understand it, the new comparisons and words trip me up.
Why couldn't it be: if you saw improvements -> mastered logic. I feel like improvements would be sufficient to master logic. Mastering logic would be necessary to see improvements? Why would Mastering logic be sufficient for seeing improvements? aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
This is tough, but we're gonna get through it guys!
I think its less about memorizing what necessarily comes AFTER the conditional word, but having a good grasp of referential phrasing to understand what the conditional indicator is for, regardless of order.
the video has different lawgic than the text or am I trippin?