I got them all right except in question 6 I included being a pet adoption center as a sufficient condition as well as the other 2, would this make it incorrect? Or is it just unnecessary but not wrong? For example: Pet and website and 501 --> eligible
@miraculousladybug being a pet adoption centre is a prerequisite for being eligible for the grant, so it's kinda just extraneous information. Assume that all MFG applicants are adoption centres and move on to the conditions we care about, ie the website and a 501c3
Unpopular opinion: I like the AI Coach. It provided the following notes on Q2 because I skipped the predicate grammar lesson.
LSAT Grammar Shortcut: The Hidden "AND" (Modified Nouns)
The Rule: The LSAT often hides "AND" statements inside descriptive grammar. When a noun in the predicate is modified by a descriptive phrase (using words like with, who are, or that have), it acts as a hidden conjunction. To fit the description, the subject must be both things.
The Example:"All trees are perennial plants with elongated stems."
The Breakdown: Even though the word "and" isn't in the sentence, for something to be a tree, it must meet two requirements:
It must be a perennial plant.
It must have an elongated stem.
The Lawgic Translation:
Original: Tree → Perennial AND Elongated Stem
Contrapositive (De Morgan's): /Perennial OR /Elongated Stem → /Tree (Meaning: If a plant is NOT perennial, OR if it does NOT have an elongated stem, it cannot be a tree. Failing just one requirement is enough to disqualify it.)
The Takeaway: Whenever you see a noun glued to a description, ask yourself: "Does this mean it has to be both things?" If yes, instantly treat it as an AND statement so you don't miss the contrapositive flip
So on question 6, I know I'm mistaking sufficiency for necessity, but I can't see how. The diagraming I did was eligible -> IW and 501C, then I had the correct contrapositive of this. I'm not seeing how Eligibility is not considered the sufficient piece for having both of these, as they are both required for eligibility (necessary). The way it is written up in the lesson the eligibility is necessary for IW and 501C, which doesn't make sense. Can someone explain or confirm this? Is there wording that I'm missing?
@Tildenb1 think about it this way. There may be other things that make you eligible for the grant. So if another place wins, it doesn't necessarily mean they HAD a non profit with a website. It is a tricky one.
Got question 5 wrong, does anyone have a good explanation?
I thought that "legally purchase alcohol" was the sufficient and "21 or 21+" is the necessary. I also thought that "in the United States" is another sufficient condition.
It seems to me like if you can legally to purchase alcohol AND are in the united states, you MUST be 21+
@emmasabin I looked at it similarly, but said that the quantifiers are "21+" and "in the US" -> "can purchase alcohol." I'm curious about both our interpretations because I truly don't see how they are wrong!
@jddaph I said the same thing! To me, being in the United States seems like a clearer quantifier than “21” or “older than 21.” It seemed redundant when you could just say 21+, so I assumed “in the US” had to be the other condition
@Karma3034Life i think its only when conjunctions are explicitly present. try not to overcomplicate too much and think of everything as being a conjunction conditional
I got these all correct right, but it felt almost a little too easy. Coming from me, who last year struggled with what others considered basic, im nervous as to why this was so easy...AHHHH
@jaidaanderson I think you're confusing necessary for sufficient condition. You might have an action that benefits another and is performed with that intention, but might not be morally good. Also don't forget to apply De Morgan's law and flip the AND to and OR.
For Q5, I translated 21 or older as 21+, but then I thought "in the US" is another condition, so my Lawgic formula was:
21+ and in-the-US --> can-purchase-alcohol
or /can-purchase-alcohol --> /21+ or /in-the-US
Is this incorrect because I'm drawing outside inferences, or why wouldn't being in the US also be a required condition to purchase alcohol? If you're not in the US but still 21+, you still might not be able to purchase alcohol, no?
I realise now that it's because the question assumes 21+ --> (legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the US), where in the US, it is part of the necessary condition of being legal, not something separable from being legally allowed.
Hey, quick question about this sentence: "All self-driving cars must be programmed to ensure not only the safety of its passengers but of other people on the road as well."
Why isn't "must be programmed" part of the sufficient condition, similar to how "after a week" is part of the sufficient condition in "Anyone infected by the virus will, after a week, produce antibodies"? Shouldn't it be: self-driving cars + programmed → ensure safety?
@lydiaaaaaa I think it's just describing the action being committed to make the necessary true. I think of it as just an elongated part of the "then" because it is describing what must be true about the subject
286 comments
i got all of them right besides q3, it really confused me.
This clicked
6/6!!!!!
5/6! I missed #3
5/6
missed #3... were commas covered in the lessons? Maybe i missed it bc of my selected study plan?
"There's no explicit conjunction indicator present"
Me, who spends like 5 minutes trying to find it:
5/6, didn't answer #3 because I was confused.
I got them all right except in question 6 I included being a pet adoption center as a sufficient condition as well as the other 2, would this make it incorrect? Or is it just unnecessary but not wrong? For example: Pet and website and 501 --> eligible
@miraculousladybug being a pet adoption centre is a prerequisite for being eligible for the grant, so it's kinda just extraneous information. Assume that all MFG applicants are adoption centres and move on to the conditions we care about, ie the website and a 501c3
Unpopular opinion: I like the AI Coach. It provided the following notes on Q2 because I skipped the predicate grammar lesson.
LSAT Grammar Shortcut: The Hidden "AND" (Modified Nouns)
The Rule: The LSAT often hides "AND" statements inside descriptive grammar. When a noun in the predicate is modified by a descriptive phrase (using words like with, who are, or that have), it acts as a hidden conjunction. To fit the description, the subject must be both things.
The Breakdown: Even though the word "and" isn't in the sentence, for something to be a tree, it must meet two requirements:
It must be a perennial plant.
It must have an elongated stem.
The Lawgic Translation:
Original: Tree → Perennial AND Elongated Stem
Contrapositive (De Morgan's): /Perennial OR /Elongated Stem → /Tree (Meaning: If a plant is NOT perennial, OR if it does NOT have an elongated stem, it cannot be a tree. Failing just one requirement is enough to disqualify it.)
The Takeaway: Whenever you see a noun glued to a description, ask yourself: "Does this mean it has to be both things?" If yes, instantly treat it as an AND statement so you don't miss the contrapositive flip
#6
So on question 6, I know I'm mistaking sufficiency for necessity, but I can't see how. The diagraming I did was eligible -> IW and 501C, then I had the correct contrapositive of this. I'm not seeing how Eligibility is not considered the sufficient piece for having both of these, as they are both required for eligibility (necessary). The way it is written up in the lesson the eligibility is necessary for IW and 501C, which doesn't make sense. Can someone explain or confirm this? Is there wording that I'm missing?
@Tildenb1 think about it this way. There may be other things that make you eligible for the grant. So if another place wins, it doesn't necessarily mean they HAD a non profit with a website. It is a tricky one.
5/6
For the first one, I only negated it rather than flipping AND then negating. Idk why I thought it stayed the same with De Morgan’s Laws.
Semi-smooth sailing from there.
I got #4 wrong because my intuition led me to believe that in this context, but meant "or" instead or "and".
Question;
Will there ever be any cases where a conditional indicator would be used as a disjunction or vice versa?
@jaydenca ahhh I see what J.Y. did., my initial interpretation is the contrapostive version of this.
Got question 5 wrong, does anyone have a good explanation?
I thought that "legally purchase alcohol" was the sufficient and "21 or 21+" is the necessary. I also thought that "in the United States" is another sufficient condition.
It seems to me like if you can legally to purchase alcohol AND are in the united states, you MUST be 21+
@emmasabin I looked at it similarly, but said that the quantifiers are "21+" and "in the US" -> "can purchase alcohol." I'm curious about both our interpretations because I truly don't see how they are wrong!
@jddaph I said the same thing! To me, being in the United States seems like a clearer quantifier than “21” or “older than 21.” It seemed redundant when you could just say 21+, so I assumed “in the US” had to be the other condition
5/6
4/6
Question, so when answering LR question, should we always apply De Morgan's Laws when taking the contrapositive?
@Karma3034Life i think its only when conjunctions are explicitly present. try not to overcomplicate too much and think of everything as being a conjunction conditional
5/6 the virus one was tough but I understand it now!
@petvma same! i thought 1 week was the necessary condition
I got these all correct right, but it felt almost a little too easy. Coming from me, who last year struggled with what others considered basic, im nervous as to why this was so easy...AHHHH
I got all of them right but I am still struggling to read OR as inclusive. It just boggles my mind, I don’t fully understand this concept -_-
Didn't get all of them right but I understand the explanation. A win is a win!🤷🏽♀️
@ChelsiSmith Right! I kinda feel like the explanations make me go against the grain of my better judgement. This process is so intuitive.
I always write these backwards. What am I missing?
Benefits another person AND performed with that intention > action is morally good
/(action is morally good) > /benefits another person AND /performed with that intention
Also can someone explain what I did wrong in Q5.?
Anyone who is twenty-one years old or older is legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the United States.
21+ > legally allowed to purchase alcohol + United States
@jaidaanderson I think you're confusing necessary for sufficient condition. You might have an action that benefits another and is performed with that intention, but might not be morally good. Also don't forget to apply De Morgan's law and flip the AND to and OR.
For Q5, I translated 21 or older as 21+, but then I thought "in the US" is another condition, so my Lawgic formula was:
21+ and in-the-US --> can-purchase-alcohol
or /can-purchase-alcohol --> /21+ or /in-the-US
Is this incorrect because I'm drawing outside inferences, or why wouldn't being in the US also be a required condition to purchase alcohol? If you're not in the US but still 21+, you still might not be able to purchase alcohol, no?
I realise now that it's because the question assumes 21+ --> (legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the US), where in the US, it is part of the necessary condition of being legal, not something separable from being legally allowed.
@siannais I wonder if it’s because “United States” can probably be seen as the modifier?
Hey, quick question about this sentence: "All self-driving cars must be programmed to ensure not only the safety of its passengers but of other people on the road as well."
Why isn't "must be programmed" part of the sufficient condition, similar to how "after a week" is part of the sufficient condition in "Anyone infected by the virus will, after a week, produce antibodies"? Shouldn't it be: self-driving cars + programmed → ensure safety?
@lydiaaaaaa I think it's just describing the action being committed to make the necessary true. I think of it as just an elongated part of the "then" because it is describing what must be true about the subject
6/6 i feel so much better about this