#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!
Why would #3 be infected and 1 week instead of produce antibodies and fight the virus? I feel as if I am getting the sufficient and necessary conditions confused in this question, but I cannot tell why.
For Q6, why are we treating "pet adoption center that has an interactive website" as a whole condition instead of splitting it into "pet adoption center" and "has interactive website"?
I got it right by assuming "anyone" is very inclusive, like most Group 1 indicators, so I put infected + week as sufficient.
But I also feel like antibodies -> infected and week could work: if you have antibodies, that is enough to say that you've been infected and it's been a week.
I got the right answer for question 1 but I am a little bit confused. In two lessons before we learned that if the "and" is in the necessary condition then it can be represented as separate conditionals leading from the sufficient condition. But in question 1 the whole point is people are claiming that both of them have to be true. What am I missing
For question #5, why is the United States not also a sufficient condition? My thinking is the anyone who is twenty-one years old or older is only relevant when in the US, other countries have different legal drinking ages. So wouldn't the condition by if you are in the US and you are 21 or older, then you are legally allowed to purchase alcohol?
#help I got all correct but question 3. I confused the necessary and sufficient conditions. I thought the question was trying to determine the necessary premises for one being infected which in that case would be a week has passed and they have produced antibodies. It appears however that the necessary conditions we are supposed to evaluate are one being infected and a week having passed to determine the sufficient value of one producing antibodies. Can someone help me understand how we can are conclusively decided the necessary and sufficient values in this sentence and what techniques are applied here.
0
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.
191 comments
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!
Why would #3 be infected and 1 week instead of produce antibodies and fight the virus? I feel as if I am getting the sufficient and necessary conditions confused in this question, but I cannot tell why.
6/6!!!
For Q6, why are we treating "pet adoption center that has an interactive website" as a whole condition instead of splitting it into "pet adoption center" and "has interactive website"?
Anyone who is twenty-one years old or older is legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the United States.
21 or older - BUY ALC
/Buy ALC - /21 and /older
buy Alc - legal age
/legal age - /buy alc
Can someone explain question 3?
I got it right by assuming "anyone" is very inclusive, like most Group 1 indicators, so I put infected + week as sufficient.
But I also feel like antibodies -> infected and week could work: if you have antibodies, that is enough to say that you've been infected and it's been a week.
I got the right answer for question 1 but I am a little bit confused. In two lessons before we learned that if the "and" is in the necessary condition then it can be represented as separate conditionals leading from the sufficient condition. But in question 1 the whole point is people are claiming that both of them have to be true. What am I missing
For question #5, why is the United States not also a sufficient condition? My thinking is the anyone who is twenty-one years old or older is only relevant when in the US, other countries have different legal drinking ages. So wouldn't the condition by if you are in the US and you are 21 or older, then you are legally allowed to purchase alcohol?
#help I got all correct but question 3. I confused the necessary and sufficient conditions. I thought the question was trying to determine the necessary premises for one being infected which in that case would be a week has passed and they have produced antibodies. It appears however that the necessary conditions we are supposed to evaluate are one being infected and a week having passed to determine the sufficient value of one producing antibodies. Can someone help me understand how we can are conclusively decided the necessary and sufficient values in this sentence and what techniques are applied here.