So if you are infected with the virus and if one week has passed then you produce antibodies. So both having virus and after 1 week means it’s necessary to have antibodies
Contrapositive is= if you don’t produce antibodies, then you either don’t have the virus or it hasn’t been more than a week?
I think I’m confusing this because now the contrapositive to me sounds like it’s only necessary to have a virus (no matter how long) or a virus for a week or more long to develop the antibodies.
I guess my question is how do I interpret the contrapositive and connect back to original without changing the meaning the “or” makes me think now only 1 is necessary but in the first it’s like antibodies are necessary when you have both virus after a week. Hope I’m explaining my thoughts right.
#2 definitely tripped me up, I didn't think of "with" as a conjunction and thought that "perennial plants with elongated stems" was all one big condition.
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'll be getting wrong on the question like #4 but then in the video it shows I did it right.
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!
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.
220 comments
Are these the only practice problems for this?
I def fell for the red herring bs.
is the voice different?
5/5, im on a roll
Just to clarify for question 3:
So if you are infected with the virus and if one week has passed then you produce antibodies. So both having virus and after 1 week means it’s necessary to have antibodies
Contrapositive is= if you don’t produce antibodies, then you either don’t have the virus or it hasn’t been more than a week?
I think I’m confusing this because now the contrapositive to me sounds like it’s only necessary to have a virus (no matter how long) or a virus for a week or more long to develop the antibodies.
I guess my question is how do I interpret the contrapositive and connect back to original without changing the meaning the “or” makes me think now only 1 is necessary but in the first it’s like antibodies are necessary when you have both virus after a week. Hope I’m explaining my thoughts right.
I actually finally understood these and correctly answered them all. Yay!
For number 1, if "only if" is a group 2 indicator why isn't ben-other and intent not necessary conditions?
#2 definitely tripped me up, I didn't think of "with" as a conjunction and thought that "perennial plants with elongated stems" was all one big condition.
Maybe I need to look up what conjunctions are lol
I don't know why but for question 6 I did pet adoption center instead of website ugh
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.