I wanted to share an example I used to illustrate the concept:
M -> N and O
I imagined M being "meal", and N being "noodles" and "O" onions. It is necessary to have noodles and onions to make a tasty pasta meal.
Clearly, if you're out of noodles, you can't make pasta, and if you're out of onions, it might turn out rather flavourless (not a meal). This logic translates pretty cleanly into:
I am struggling to find the value in these types of lesson knowing that we will just not have time to do all of those s* on the exam... I understand that you are only supposed to use these techniques on really confusing questions, but we are spending so much time on these concepts
It can appear in various LR questions but is more common in MBT, Parallel, SA, and NA. A more recent example I came across was PT137 S3 Q17. I hope this helps!
Mark and Susan don’t have a car. Their friend Anne does. Mark and Susan want to go to the beach. If mark and Susan go to the beach, then Anne must go to the beach.
M and S -> A
If Anne doesn’t go to the beach, then mark or Susan can’t go to the beach (because they don’t have a car).
I'm not gonna lie I worry about a lot of people's ability to learn if they are complaining about not having a video. Sure, it's nice to have it broken down; however, reading requires active participation from the viewer. If the lack of a video is making it boring or difficult to learn I urge you to try harder to understand the subject matter.
This has nothing to do with being bored. There are different type of students some of whom learn by listening others by reading. It is difficult material and videos were 100 times better.
Personally I needed to see all 4 variations of conjunctions and disjunctions in their contrapostive form (using Morgan's law of course) before it become clear. Hopefully this helps others.
#feedback #help it would be really helpful if we could step back and set general rules rather than solely run through than examples (their english translations can overcomplicate things) for some of these. i wrote a simple A, B, C lawgic example (without any english translation), but want to make sure it's correct.
negating conjunctions:
A and B ⟶ C
/C ⟶ /A or /B
negating disjunctions:
A⟶ B or C
/B and /C ⟶ /A
can you let me know if this is right, or if there are any errors here?
dude is this even going to be on the test? Like is this part of the foundations course a waste of my time right now if the logic games are gone starting this month? I'm toiling over understanding these formulas and then I go and take a practice test and none of it seems applicable. Help am I crazy or not seeing how this should be helping me / has helped me with the post august test? It feels like my time would be way better spent on logical reasoning and RC practice/ sections. Please share your thoughts / strategies with me I don't really know what to do
As someone who's taken the test before, it will. It's less applicable than it used to be because there aren't any logic games, but complicated conditional language will come up in logical reasoning and it's gonna be very tough to follow--and very easy to miss entirely-- if you don't have a grasp of it. Part of the reason I'm taking it again is because I didn't feel like I had a solid enough grasp of conditional language before, and it caused me to miss points and go slower than I otherwise would have gone. It's a pain but I do think it's very very worthwhile! A thought on study strategy: I would focus on the wordy conditional language prompts in the skill builders. The "If H, then N or O" stuff is no longer really applicable (even though it does distill the concepts nicely), but the one prompt that said something like: "Democracy erodes when politicians are corrupt" etc. is exactly the type of stuff you'll see on a few LR questions. If you can diagram and follow those, and make the valid conclusions from those, then you'll be in good shape. But they'll definitely just keep getting more wordy.
Understanding foundational logic is all over. You'll see it in logical reasoning and you need to understand how the arguments are laid out and what they mean. if you feel like you could spend your time on other things, do that, but if you don't understand the foundations, you may be getting tripped up down the line. I know for me personally, I didn't understand the basics enough when I took the LSAT, so I wanted to relearn them and really focus on knowing the form so that I could see improvements in my scores.
TLDR- how you study is up to you. Logic is ALL over the LSAT, so knowing the basics IS important, BUT you need to spend your time doing what is best for you
I was confused at first too. Basically it's preflipped and negated
He started with /N or /O -> /M and then immediately flipped it and negated it at the first step in the negating disjunction section. From there he did the "and" "or" swap to finish off the proper negation. The starting point isn't that first line, the first step has already been completed there. Hope this helps!
111 comments
I wanted to share an example I used to illustrate the concept:
M -> N and O
I imagined M being "meal", and N being "noodles" and "O" onions. It is necessary to have noodles and onions to make a tasty pasta meal.
Clearly, if you're out of noodles, you can't make pasta, and if you're out of onions, it might turn out rather flavourless (not a meal). This logic translates pretty cleanly into:
/N or /O -> /M
Let me know if this helped anyone else!
When are we supposed to have time for this In 2 minutes?
I decided to pursue law because I'm not that good at math. Now I feel like I'm back at square one........
So it's just "put that thang down flip it and reverse it" again?
I am struggling to find the value in these types of lesson knowing that we will just not have time to do all of those s* on the exam... I understand that you are only supposed to use these techniques on really confusing questions, but we are spending so much time on these concepts
Agreed! Does anyone have any advice on whether we should be watching and taking notes on every lesson or have another strategy?
#feedback what kind of LSAT question would we use this technique in?
It can appear in various LR questions but is more common in MBT, Parallel, SA, and NA. A more recent example I came across was PT137 S3 Q17. I hope this helps!
Mark and Susan don’t have a car. Their friend Anne does. Mark and Susan want to go to the beach. If mark and Susan go to the beach, then Anne must go to the beach.
M and S -> A
If Anne doesn’t go to the beach, then mark or Susan can’t go to the beach (because they don’t have a car).
/A -> /M or /S
Hope this helps someone
I think this is how it's summarized
How to negate a conjunction
Step 1: Start with Conditional statement
English: If M is adopted, then N and O must be adopted.
Lawgic: M → N and O
Negate the conjunction: /N or /O → /M
How to negate a disjunction
Step 1: Start with Disjunction
English: If not N or O then Not M
Lawgic: /N or /O → /M
Negate the disjunction: M → N and O
De Morgan seems chill
it looks like I didn't study enough Mandarin or Calc for the LSAT!
I'm not gonna lie I worry about a lot of people's ability to learn if they are complaining about not having a video. Sure, it's nice to have it broken down; however, reading requires active participation from the viewer. If the lack of a video is making it boring or difficult to learn I urge you to try harder to understand the subject matter.
This has nothing to do with being bored. There are different type of students some of whom learn by listening others by reading. It is difficult material and videos were 100 times better.
Conjunction/Disjunction vs Contrapostive
A AND B → C
/C → /A OR /B (Contrapostive Morgan's Law)
A OR B → C
/C → /A AND /B (Contrapostive Morgan's Law)
A → B AND C
/B OR /C → /A (Contrapostive Morgan's Law)
A → B OR C
/B AND /C → /A (Contrapostive Morgan's Law)
Personally I needed to see all 4 variations of conjunctions and disjunctions in their contrapostive form (using Morgan's law of course) before it become clear. Hopefully this helps others.
mah boy augustus
They got internships at De Morgans law?
this is genuinely giving me PTSD from discrete math
If Cain runs he will go to the store and the movies .
Runs → store and movies
The negation
/ store or / movies → /run
If Cain did not go to the store or the movies then he did not run.
Makes sense! I think people struggling with this, need to understand that memorization shouldn't be the goal, but this should feel intuitive!
Of course, in a contrapositive, if either of the previously NECESSARY conditions fail, the sufficient cant happen, because both were required!
Just think about it logically. Don't make it more complicated than it has to be.
contrapositive - de morgan's law
and -> or
or -> and
slap a negationn on all
I've been waiting for my goat DeMorgan -someone who took logic
#feedback #help it would be really helpful if we could step back and set general rules rather than solely run through than examples (their english translations can overcomplicate things) for some of these. i wrote a simple A, B, C lawgic example (without any english translation), but want to make sure it's correct.
negating conjunctions:
A and B ⟶ C
/C ⟶ /A or /B
negating disjunctions:
A⟶ B or C
/B and /C ⟶ /A
can you let me know if this is right, or if there are any errors here?
Good job! Those are right.
Is it necessary to do the conjunction step? Or can we just put it into lawgic and move on.
dude is this even going to be on the test? Like is this part of the foundations course a waste of my time right now if the logic games are gone starting this month? I'm toiling over understanding these formulas and then I go and take a practice test and none of it seems applicable. Help am I crazy or not seeing how this should be helping me / has helped me with the post august test? It feels like my time would be way better spent on logical reasoning and RC practice/ sections. Please share your thoughts / strategies with me I don't really know what to do
As someone who's taken the test before, it will. It's less applicable than it used to be because there aren't any logic games, but complicated conditional language will come up in logical reasoning and it's gonna be very tough to follow--and very easy to miss entirely-- if you don't have a grasp of it. Part of the reason I'm taking it again is because I didn't feel like I had a solid enough grasp of conditional language before, and it caused me to miss points and go slower than I otherwise would have gone. It's a pain but I do think it's very very worthwhile! A thought on study strategy: I would focus on the wordy conditional language prompts in the skill builders. The "If H, then N or O" stuff is no longer really applicable (even though it does distill the concepts nicely), but the one prompt that said something like: "Democracy erodes when politicians are corrupt" etc. is exactly the type of stuff you'll see on a few LR questions. If you can diagram and follow those, and make the valid conclusions from those, then you'll be in good shape. But they'll definitely just keep getting more wordy.
Understanding foundational logic is all over. You'll see it in logical reasoning and you need to understand how the arguments are laid out and what they mean. if you feel like you could spend your time on other things, do that, but if you don't understand the foundations, you may be getting tripped up down the line. I know for me personally, I didn't understand the basics enough when I took the LSAT, so I wanted to relearn them and really focus on knowing the form so that I could see improvements in my scores.
TLDR- how you study is up to you. Logic is ALL over the LSAT, so knowing the basics IS important, BUT you need to spend your time doing what is best for you
im confused because in the the negation of the disjunction there was no flip only negation in the first step of flip and negate of the disjunction
I was confused at first too. Basically it's preflipped and negated
He started with /N or /O -> /M and then immediately flipped it and negated it at the first step in the negating disjunction section. From there he did the "and" "or" swap to finish off the proper negation. The starting point isn't that first line, the first step has already been completed there. Hope this helps!
Exactly the clarification I was looking for! Thank you!
Hello, thank you so much fro the clarification it really clarified and made sense of the negation!
Rest in Paradise
Thank you Mr. Morgan :)