I feel like for #5 part of the sufficient condition should be being in the US. First, it is specified; second, common sense supports that some countries have different ages. I did 21 & US -> A, which basically worked, but I was still surprised to see the explanation say "or older" was the conjunction.
For #6, is pet adoption center not included in the sufficient condition? There could exist a nonprofit with an interactive website that is not a pet adoption center. Would not being an adoption center disqualify it from the Mittens Foundation Grant?
For number 5, "Anyone who is twenty-one years old or older is legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the United States.", isn't being 21 and 21+ both sufficient and necessary for purchasing alcohol in the US? I'm a little confused on this one!
Someone please help me understand for the better. For Question 4, my answer was " Safety of passengers and other people --> must be programmed " with the contrapositive being " /must be programmed --> /safety of passengers or /other people ".
I completely focused on "must" as a necessary indicator and thought that "programmed" was the necessary conclusion.
I initially thought "programmed" should be the sufficient condition, and the rest being the necessary condition but the necessary indicator really threw me off. I didn't know "must" could refer to the whole clause right after it. Am I just dumb??
#5 got me. I didn't fall for the 10% line but i put that being a pet adoption center was also a requirement (three total). Am I wrong for that? It's not like a person or some other kind of entity can be eligible right for this grant?????
Got confused on 6. I assumed that a center that has less than 10% adoption rate may be eligible was part of the Lawgic formula. Is there any tips for avoiding tricks like this?
I'm feeling confused by #1 -- I thought conjunctions in the necessary clause are independently necessary and they lead separately away from the sufficient condition? or am I mixing something up here (I assumed this also because of the 'only if' indicating the necessary conditions)
I'm glad I took my time with #6 and paid attention to the last sentence. I looked at the last sentence as if it was adding background information and did not diagram that part.
this is making more sense to me than the beginning of the conditional and set logic modules did... idk what it is about this "or" and "and" thing but it clicks way easier to me than chaining...
For Q6, I noted the "may" a bit differently and saw it as:
L10 and website -> eligible
However, the contrapositive does not always hold true. Now, I see "even" and realize it is describing an (irrelevant) extraneous case, NOT a rule in their logic!
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.
207 comments
I got tricked on question 6
Woo! This makes more sense! lol
I feel like for #5 part of the sufficient condition should be being in the US. First, it is specified; second, common sense supports that some countries have different ages. I did 21 & US -> A, which basically worked, but I was still surprised to see the explanation say "or older" was the conjunction.
First 100%!
I am peppering in random LSAT drills and not really noticing my score increasing yet. I hope that's normal..
For #6, is pet adoption center not included in the sufficient condition? There could exist a nonprofit with an interactive website that is not a pet adoption center. Would not being an adoption center disqualify it from the Mittens Foundation Grant?
For number 5, "Anyone who is twenty-one years old or older is legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the United States.", isn't being 21 and 21+ both sufficient and necessary for purchasing alcohol in the US? I'm a little confused on this one!
Someone please help me understand for the better. For Question 4, my answer was " Safety of passengers and other people --> must be programmed " with the contrapositive being " /must be programmed --> /safety of passengers or /other people ".
I completely focused on "must" as a necessary indicator and thought that "programmed" was the necessary conclusion.
I initially thought "programmed" should be the sufficient condition, and the rest being the necessary condition but the necessary indicator really threw me off. I didn't know "must" could refer to the whole clause right after it. Am I just dumb??
4/5 misread the antibodies question but quickly understood my mistake. I hope DeMorgan would be proud
5/5
#5 got me. I didn't fall for the 10% line but i put that being a pet adoption center was also a requirement (three total). Am I wrong for that? It's not like a person or some other kind of entity can be eligible right for this grant?????
Last question tricked me
Got confused on 6. I assumed that a center that has less than 10% adoption rate may be eligible was part of the Lawgic formula. Is there any tips for avoiding tricks like this?
Honestly... I can't diagram but I understand the logic. Running on prayers and vibes rn.
I'm feeling confused by #1 -- I thought conjunctions in the necessary clause are independently necessary and they lead separately away from the sufficient condition? or am I mixing something up here (I assumed this also because of the 'only if' indicating the necessary conditions)
On number 6, I understand why the second sentence is irrelevant, but why is it not conditional? I feel like it would be. Can anyone explain?
I'll be getting wrong on the question like #4 but then in the video it shows I did it right.
6/6!!
For question 3, could you translate it to:
Infected by Virus -> Antibodies in a week
/Antibodies in a week -> /Infected by virus
If not, why?
I'm glad I took my time with #6 and paid attention to the last sentence. I looked at the last sentence as if it was adding background information and did not diagram that part.
I am having a hard time understanding how to properly follow this strategy, can anyone help?
In Q5, I mistakenly translated the 2nd half as follow:
<10% and website -> eligible
/eligible -> /<10% or /website
I realize it's incorrect to infer a conditional relationship because of the word "may"
crashing out
this is making more sense to me than the beginning of the conditional and set logic modules did... idk what it is about this "or" and "and" thing but it clicks way easier to me than chaining...
Is this a true or false statement?
For the sufficient condition to be true, the necessary condition must be met.
#feedback #help #instructor #tutor
For Q6, I noted the "may" a bit differently and saw it as:
L10 and website -> eligible
However, the contrapositive does not always hold true. Now, I see "even" and realize it is describing an (irrelevant) extraneous case, NOT a rule in their logic!