from the review here can someone tell me if what i have bolded is correct?
If a conjunction occurs within the sufficient condition, both elements together guarantee the necessary condition. Neither alone is independently sufficient. In Lawgic, keep "and" within the sufficient condition. the two need each other to be necessary.
If a conjunction occurs within the necessary condition, two events are independently necessary when the sufficient condition is triggered. In Lawgic, these can be represented as separate conditionals leading from the sufficient condition. the two can both happen independent of another upon the sufficent.
#feedback HELP!!. Why when and is used as a conduction in a sufficient condition does it mean you must have both of these things to have the necessary condition. Why is it not the same when and as a conjunction is used in the necessary condition? Is it not saying If A---B and C
So what you're saying is if you have A then you can have b or c. Im just having a hard time in understanding why that is the case.
- if there’s an "and" in the sufficient condition:
Both parts of the "and" together are needed to trigger the outcome in the necessary condition. Neither part on its own is enough. So, keep the "and" together in the sufficient condition.
- if there’s an "and" in the necessary condition:
Each part of the "and" is required separately when the sufficient condition happens.
In Lawgic, this can be shown with separate statements, each connecting the sufficient condition to one of the necessary conditions.
For the last bit, where the events in the necessary condition branch off, what does that imply about the temporality of the condition? Like, when M is adopted, that guarantees that N and O will be adopted. The branching path seems to say that when M is adopted, either N or O is adopted. Going down one path would seem to preclude the other. Rather the explanation here seems to say that both of those events can happen simultaneously. Is that true?
How important are these sections for the new LSAT format without logic games? I've noticed this entire section does not have videos, like the others.
Is this some correlation to the level of importance of the new LSAT structure? Or is it just purely coincidental? I am just trying to figure out where to focus most of my time. Thanks
why does the sentence "If Amidala convinces the Senate and the Jedi Knights accomplish their mission, then the Chancellor's nefarious plan will fail." translate into A and J → CF?
I thought through an example that shows how/why 2+ necessary conditions joined via conjunction are independently necessary, as the lesson states. Maybe it'll help:
Example statement: "I am happy only if my team wins and I score."
In lawgic: H → TW + IS, as "only if" is a Group 2, necessary condition indicator
The contrapositives would be:
/TW → /H, or more elaborately, /TW + IS → /H (Even if I do score, as long as the team loses, I am not happy)
/IS → /H, or more elaborately, TW + /IS → /H (Even if the team wins, if I do not score, I am not happy [selfish, lol!])
And together these both also imply, /TW + /IS → /H (If the team loses and I do not score, I'm definitely not happy)
So we can say the two necessary conditions are "independently necessary" overall, because as long as one fails in the contrapositive, then the sufficient condition also fails.
how I understood it is that conjunction present in sufficient it means BOTH must be met to get the necessary. if conjunction present in the necessary to 2 ideas are independent from one another meaning if one is met so did the sufficient.
I am a bit confused regarding statement #2. Based on the fact that if the sufficient condition is met then then necessary must be met but in the reverse just because the necessary is met does not imply the sufficient. For the example of if M is adopted then N are 0 are adopted if M -> N+O, based on this statement the contrastive would be if /N+/O -> /M which means that if the necessary is not met then the sufficient is neither can someone please explain why as the arrow cannot move from right to left only left to right? #feedback
I get wanting to separate N and O because they are not related to each other, but that seems dangerous in practice. If M occurs, then BOTH N and O must occur. They are triggered by the same sufficient condition. I prefer to use parentheses to indicate that M is sufficient for both:
"Alternatively, since each necessary condition is "independent" of the other necessary condition, we could translate like this:"
I am having a hard time understanding when the condition is "independent". Why was first example not translated similarly as the second example? Is it because the first example in order for the sufficient condition to be activated it requires both for the necessary to be triggered?
Thank you!
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!
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.
52 comments
from the review here can someone tell me if what i have bolded is correct?
If a conjunction occurs within the sufficient condition, both elements together guarantee the necessary condition. Neither alone is independently sufficient. In Lawgic, keep "and" within the sufficient condition. the two need each other to be necessary.
If a conjunction occurs within the necessary condition, two events are independently necessary when the sufficient condition is triggered. In Lawgic, these can be represented as separate conditionals leading from the sufficient condition. the two can both happen independent of another upon the sufficent.
if i get a 180 everyone who responds to this I will take out for lunch.
I'm getting logic games flashbacks lolol
So if we found out that M and N is adopted, is it safe to assume that O is also adopted?
do we need to put brackets around A&J in order to show that both of these need to be satisfied? and not just one?
Resolved!
#feedback HELP!!. Why when and is used as a conduction in a sufficient condition does it mean you must have both of these things to have the necessary condition. Why is it not the same when and as a conjunction is used in the necessary condition? Is it not saying If A---B and C
So what you're saying is if you have A then you can have b or c. Im just having a hard time in understanding why that is the case.
- if there’s an "and" in the sufficient condition:
Both parts of the "and" together are needed to trigger the outcome in the necessary condition. Neither part on its own is enough. So, keep the "and" together in the sufficient condition.
- if there’s an "and" in the necessary condition:
Each part of the "and" is required separately when the sufficient condition happens.
In Lawgic, this can be shown with separate statements, each connecting the sufficient condition to one of the necessary conditions.
I think venn diagrams might be helpful to illustrate how this concept is applied.
For the last bit, where the events in the necessary condition branch off, what does that imply about the temporality of the condition? Like, when M is adopted, that guarantees that N and O will be adopted. The branching path seems to say that when M is adopted, either N or O is adopted. Going down one path would seem to preclude the other. Rather the explanation here seems to say that both of those events can happen simultaneously. Is that true?
It's starting to click!
How important are these sections for the new LSAT format without logic games? I've noticed this entire section does not have videos, like the others.
Is this some correlation to the level of importance of the new LSAT structure? Or is it just purely coincidental? I am just trying to figure out where to focus most of my time. Thanks
why does the sentence "If Amidala convinces the Senate and the Jedi Knights accomplish their mission, then the Chancellor's nefarious plan will fail." translate into A and J → CF?
I thought through an example that shows how/why 2+ necessary conditions joined via conjunction are independently necessary, as the lesson states. Maybe it'll help:
Example statement: "I am happy only if my team wins and I score."
In lawgic: H → TW + IS, as "only if" is a Group 2, necessary condition indicator
The contrapositives would be:
/TW → /H, or more elaborately, /TW + IS → /H (Even if I do score, as long as the team loses, I am not happy)
/IS → /H, or more elaborately, TW + /IS → /H (Even if the team wins, if I do not score, I am not happy [selfish, lol!])
And together these both also imply, /TW + /IS → /H (If the team loses and I do not score, I'm definitely not happy)
So we can say the two necessary conditions are "independently necessary" overall, because as long as one fails in the contrapositive, then the sufficient condition also fails.
Is this...right??
#feedback
how I understood it is that conjunction present in sufficient it means BOTH must be met to get the necessary. if conjunction present in the necessary to 2 ideas are independent from one another meaning if one is met so did the sufficient.
pretty much both vs on or the other
I am a bit confused regarding statement #2. Based on the fact that if the sufficient condition is met then then necessary must be met but in the reverse just because the necessary is met does not imply the sufficient. For the example of if M is adopted then N are 0 are adopted if M -> N+O, based on this statement the contrastive would be if /N+/O -> /M which means that if the necessary is not met then the sufficient is neither can someone please explain why as the arrow cannot move from right to left only left to right? #feedback
I get wanting to separate N and O because they are not related to each other, but that seems dangerous in practice. If M occurs, then BOTH N and O must occur. They are triggered by the same sufficient condition. I prefer to use parentheses to indicate that M is sufficient for both:
M ---> ( N & O )
if A, then B and C, can that be rewritten to if A and B, then C?
So in this example "If M is adopted, then N and O are adopted." If M is adopted is that the sufficient condition???
"If M is adopted, then N and O are adopted."
Why is each necessary condition (N is adopted and O is adopted) independent of each other?
#help
How would you negate a statement like A -> B and C.
Lets say B does not happen, which makes it /B and allows us to contrapose back for /A. What happens to the C? Or, is this allowed?
Thanks #help
How would you take the contrapositive of M -> N and O? #help
If "N" and "O" are adopted independently, does that mean that "M" automatically is adopted? Is this a confusion of sufficiency for necessity?
#help Added by Admin
Can "and" in the necessary condition be understood as an inclusive "or"? #help (Added by admin)
Hello,
"Alternatively, since each necessary condition is "independent" of the other necessary condition, we could translate like this:"
I am having a hard time understanding when the condition is "independent". Why was first example not translated similarly as the second example? Is it because the first example in order for the sufficient condition to be activated it requires both for the necessary to be triggered?
Thank you!