Hello, is (1) and (2) not apart of the Group 1 translation rules based on the indicator word "All"? I do not get why it clarifies that these "ideas that precede and are distant from"if" can also be sufficient conditions." I thought they were already sufficient conditions because of "All." Can someone please tell me? Thank you!
Could you split "open" and "notoriously" into separate sufficient conditions, or should they be kept together? Meaning, instead of OpNo, could the Lawgic be: Op and No and 3+Ms → R?
Obama is is meeting with the first 100 Chicagoans who bought tickets to his new museum. To be in the first 100, you have to get in line before 8:00 am and bought your ticket.
Domain: If a person is a Chicagoan, and if you have bought a ticket, I expect these conditions to already be satisfied.
Rule: If you are in line before 8:00 am, then you will meet Obama.
This is how I'd apply it to a recent article I just read.
Mikie Sherrill announced that 770 tickets to World Cup matches in MetLife Stadium will be given to NJ residents. Of that number, they have set several qualifiers for ticket distribution (I'd list them all here, but it'd be way too long).
However, for simplicity, let's say 500 were going towards military, 200 for healthcare, and 70 for supporters of small businesses. These are all sufficient conditions (In the military -> Qualify for Ticket, in healthcare -> Qualify for Ticket, etc).
Being a NJ resident is also a sufficient condition, but obviously the governor of NJ is not going to offer free tickets to MetLife Stadium to New Yorkers or Texans. So, we would "kick it up to the domain" because we'd expect that condition to be satisfied.
o...m...g.. ive paused it, ive come back, ive rewinded, ive played 3 times, i opend my laptop 15 minutes ago after killing some questions, i do not for the life of me understand this
i wish they would start implementing actual LSAT questions so we can see the technique applied. All these techniques and I am so confused when the time comes to apply them to legitimate LSAT questions
Seems to me that the reviewing the question first would help determine which sufficient conditions should be kept in the rule v. the domain. Is that an accurate game plan?
@CLacey I know you asked this a few weeks ago and by know you likely are able to answer it by now, but I would say so! When we watch the video reviews after our quizzes on here, our instructor notes that he'll sometimes intentionally not begin analysis before he reads more of a question; he'll get the context first. The sentences we study (To be a jedi, you must so-and-so; all cats are mammals and trained by French opera singers, etc.) are all meant to fit into larger contexts, it seems, so I would say you're right on the money by ensuring you read a question fully before segmenting into rule vs. domain.
@AnneRossPender because the word "and" indicates that both conditions but happen to meet the requirement. I think if the word "or" was chosen, as in openly or notoriously, then only one of the subjects(or both) are sufficient for the necessary claim.
@mahi0615 essentially all this lesson is saying is if necessary, ignore sufficient conditions that aren’t relevant. But this is a double edge sword because like what the lesson showed, you could have a question that talks about “London” yada yada. And that should clue you in that you’re in NYC. Honestly this lesson is counterproductive. Ignore conditions but not ignore conditions? That just takes more brain cycles to track overall.
Seems to me that Domain = no question about that condition. As in, I have no question Jane lives in NYC and no question she lives in 10+ building. Because it is established. If the size of her building has not been established, then it stays in the chain as a conditional, until it is answered. Information about her building is material to the discussion around the rule. Pretty clear that it will be answered easily, but perhaps less easily than the city in which the rule applies since you're probably arguing the case in that exact city...
This technique pretty much describes the rule of replacement in formal propositional logic called EXPORTATION.
i.e., [p --> (q --> r)] is logically equivalent to [(p AND q) --> r]
In other words, the "domain" is p. The given statement is, "if p, then q if r." In the "domain" of p, the statement can be simplified to "q if r." In other words, [p --> (q --> r)]. Re-stating this conditional statement WITHOUT "kicking it up to the domain" would yield: "if p AND q, then r," or, in other words, "[(p AND q) --> r]."
113 comments
Hello, is (1) and (2) not apart of the Group 1 translation rules based on the indicator word "All"? I do not get why it clarifies that these "ideas that precede and are distant from"if" can also be sufficient conditions." I thought they were already sufficient conditions because of "All." Can someone please tell me? Thank you!
Could you split "open" and "notoriously" into separate sufficient conditions, or should they be kept together? Meaning, instead of OpNo, could the Lawgic be: Op and No and 3+Ms → R?
Was lost at first. After the video break it down yourself again, and re watch the video.
Makes sense, thank you (P.S. please do not downvote me yall idk what your problem is lmao)
Maybe painfully obvious but... how do I bookmark a lesson again? 😅
@jddaph there is a little symbol in the top left next to where you can open up this discussion. it almosts looks like a lil ribbon. click that
Examples that helped me from what ChatGPT generated:
Suppose I say:
Full Lawgic:
CA + 18+ + RV + Poll → Vote
You could write:
Domain: CA + 18+ + RV
Rule: Poll → Vote
Because the interesting question is usually:
Not:
This is how I would apply this technique.
Obama is is meeting with the first 100 Chicagoans who bought tickets to his new museum. To be in the first 100, you have to get in line before 8:00 am and bought your ticket.
Domain: If a person is a Chicagoan, and if you have bought a ticket, I expect these conditions to already be satisfied.
Rule: If you are in line before 8:00 am, then you will meet Obama.
i wish they gave us answer choices for this question so we could see how the answer messes with the rule but not the domain
This is how I'd apply it to a recent article I just read.
Mikie Sherrill announced that 770 tickets to World Cup matches in MetLife Stadium will be given to NJ residents. Of that number, they have set several qualifiers for ticket distribution (I'd list them all here, but it'd be way too long).
However, for simplicity, let's say 500 were going towards military, 200 for healthcare, and 70 for supporters of small businesses. These are all sufficient conditions (In the military -> Qualify for Ticket, in healthcare -> Qualify for Ticket, etc).
Being a NJ resident is also a sufficient condition, but obviously the governor of NJ is not going to offer free tickets to MetLife Stadium to New Yorkers or Texans. So, we would "kick it up to the domain" because we'd expect that condition to be satisfied.
@DevanshiPatel good example!
o...m...g.. ive paused it, ive come back, ive rewinded, ive played 3 times, i opend my laptop 15 minutes ago after killing some questions, i do not for the life of me understand this
@KennedyLuther maybe because it looks like a math problem when turned into Lawgic and immediately am turned off lol
@tanyab umm lemme know if u get this
@Partyy got it x
It's easier to understand when you look at it from a larger scope view.
Bookmarking this one. Hot diggity dang will this be useful to boil down a stimulus but it'll take time to master
I really like this technique because my biggest challenge with the LSAT so far is avoiding getting lost in the stimulus!
ngl i am so lost
i wish they would start implementing actual LSAT questions so we can see the technique applied. All these techniques and I am so confused when the time comes to apply them to legitimate LSAT questions
@ps939 There are a few spread throughout this module -- we'll be adding about 5-6 more.
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/intro-youtry-1-pt123-s3-q22
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-1-pt111-s3-q18
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/drill-pt124-s3-q19-pt110-s2-q23-pt112-s1-q14
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-2-pt142-s1-q10
@ps939 Thank you for these! I have completed these but appreciate you putting more!
Seems to me that the reviewing the question first would help determine which sufficient conditions should be kept in the rule v. the domain. Is that an accurate game plan?
@CLacey I know you asked this a few weeks ago and by know you likely are able to answer it by now, but I would say so! When we watch the video reviews after our quizzes on here, our instructor notes that he'll sometimes intentionally not begin analysis before he reads more of a question; he'll get the context first. The sentences we study (To be a jedi, you must so-and-so; all cats are mammals and trained by French opera singers, etc.) are all meant to fit into larger contexts, it seems, so I would say you're right on the money by ensuring you read a question fully before segmenting into rule vs. domain.
Good luck on your studies, you got this!!
Why are you allowed to join "open and notoriously" as OpNo? Couldn't you keep a pet openly, but not notoriously, and vice versa?
@AnneRossPender because the word "and" indicates that both conditions but happen to meet the requirement. I think if the word "or" was chosen, as in openly or notoriously, then only one of the subjects(or both) are sufficient for the necessary claim.
my brain refuses to under stand this. sorry
@mahi0615 essentially all this lesson is saying is if necessary, ignore sufficient conditions that aren’t relevant. But this is a double edge sword because like what the lesson showed, you could have a question that talks about “London” yada yada. And that should clue you in that you’re in NYC. Honestly this lesson is counterproductive. Ignore conditions but not ignore conditions? That just takes more brain cycles to track overall.
I dont know if the video was just long or what but I feel like this confused the crap out of me just now
The "have an inalienable right to keep a pet" is the necessary condition because it is the predicate?
Sometimes you have to activate your domain expansion.
Seems to me that Domain = no question about that condition. As in, I have no question Jane lives in NYC and no question she lives in 10+ building. Because it is established. If the size of her building has not been established, then it stays in the chain as a conditional, until it is answered. Information about her building is material to the discussion around the rule. Pretty clear that it will be answered easily, but perhaps less easily than the city in which the rule applies since you're probably arguing the case in that exact city...
Am i the only one confused by this?
This technique pretty much describes the rule of replacement in formal propositional logic called EXPORTATION.
i.e., [p --> (q --> r)] is logically equivalent to [(p AND q) --> r]
In other words, the "domain" is p. The given statement is, "if p, then q if r." In the "domain" of p, the statement can be simplified to "q if r." In other words, [p --> (q --> r)]. Re-stating this conditional statement WITHOUT "kicking it up to the domain" would yield: "if p AND q, then r," or, in other words, "[(p AND q) --> r]."