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]."
This strategy has been so helpful in better understanding complex argument structures! No other LSAT course that I have taken has provided this approach.
I am at a loss for words. I learned about kicking up the domain before there was a video about it and I struggled understanding it. Thank you so much 7Sage. The video is soooo goood!
Commenting to come back to this page. To future attorneys, what is your preference: Yeti, Stanley, generic, or another brand you swear by for coffee/tea/water? I'll start with Zojirushi. A little pricey, but I still use my first one, which I bought 10 years ago for my drinks.
I like the domain idea, this is the first place I've seen that (I've studied 3 other books, this subject has been tricky for me)! Definitely would not have made sense first pass, though. You have to get a feel for LR first.
#feedback a little confused here. I anticipate it will be difficult to determine which rules should not be part of the "action" without extensive experience with LR conditional practice questions and tests.
Is it possible to get the same outcome if we were to smush all the sufficient conditions together? For example:
“All New York City residents living in buildings with more than ten units have an inalienable right to keep a pet if that animal has been kept openly and notoriously for three months or more.”
NYC 10+ unit apartment dwellers with pet openly and notoriously kept for 3+ months → inalienable right to keep pet
Contrapositive: You don’t have an inalienable right to keep a pet if you are not a NYC 10+ unit apartment dweller or pet owner who has openly or notoriously kept an animal for 3+ months.
I'm having a hard time understanding this explanation solely because of (1) and (2) also being followed by the sufficient indicator "All." How do we know which one is 'most important'? By the context of the stimulus? Wondering if I am just misunderstanding.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. But would it be safe to say that the "domain" essentially functions as context? In the sense that "yes its a condition" but it does not really "determine" the right to keep a pet or not in the example given. As the explanation says "why would a Londoner care about NYC laws regarding pets?" Would saying that everything that falls outside of the domain is "whataboutism"? It's irrelevant to consider those things outside of the 'context' of the premise.
So if I'd say:
Only black cats with four paws who are nice and like salmon are allowed in the house.
domain: "black cats with four paws"
rule: "nice and like salmon -> in the house"
Here "black cats with four paws" is the context in which my rule applies, right?
When you see tons of sufficient conditions, just focus on the ones that are most important. How do you know they're important? They can be argued or contested (I think).
The first 2 listed arent as important. 3 and 4 are important so just focus on those. Prioritize the important sufficient conditions and set aside the not-so-important ones.
Did i get it right or miss anything?
28
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.
79 comments
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]."
This strategy has been so helpful in better understanding complex argument structures! No other LSAT course that I have taken has provided this approach.
DOMAIN EXPANSION on the LSAT??
I am at a loss for words. I learned about kicking up the domain before there was a video about it and I struggled understanding it. Thank you so much 7Sage. The video is soooo goood!
SO! The Domain is the main character?
This seems really risky
Commenting to come back to this page. To future attorneys, what is your preference: Yeti, Stanley, generic, or another brand you swear by for coffee/tea/water? I'll start with Zojirushi. A little pricey, but I still use my first one, which I bought 10 years ago for my drinks.
looks like a chemistry equation lol
An example of a real LSAT question should be inserted in this lesson.
I like the domain idea, this is the first place I've seen that (I've studied 3 other books, this subject has been tricky for me)! Definitely would not have made sense first pass, though. You have to get a feel for LR first.
Trick: Kick into the Domain
Step 1: Put the “obvious/background” stuff into the domain (context we don’t have to keep repeating).
Domain = NYC residents in 10+ unit buildings.
Step 2: Focus the actual rule only on what matters.
Rule = If OpNo ∧ 3+Ms → Right.
Domain Expansion: Infinite Conditional Chains
this makes my brain feel smoother
Is it incorrect to think of the domain as similar to modifiers?
i thought the translation was supposed to go: Necessary condition → sufficient Condition
#feedback a little confused here. I anticipate it will be difficult to determine which rules should not be part of the "action" without extensive experience with LR conditional practice questions and tests.
#feedback Are the subtitles slightly de-synced from the audio for anyone else at some parts of the video?
I though that one shouldn't make assumptions in an LSAT exam.
#feedback for the last few lessons, the speed of JY's speech has intermittently gone full force, approximately 9000 times the normal speed.
yassssss
Is it possible to get the same outcome if we were to smush all the sufficient conditions together? For example:
“All New York City residents living in buildings with more than ten units have an inalienable right to keep a pet if that animal has been kept openly and notoriously for three months or more.”
NYC 10+ unit apartment dwellers with pet openly and notoriously kept for 3+ months → inalienable right to keep pet
Contrapositive: You don’t have an inalienable right to keep a pet if you are not a NYC 10+ unit apartment dweller or pet owner who has openly or notoriously kept an animal for 3+ months.
I'm having a hard time understanding this explanation solely because of (1) and (2) also being followed by the sufficient indicator "All." How do we know which one is 'most important'? By the context of the stimulus? Wondering if I am just misunderstanding.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. But would it be safe to say that the "domain" essentially functions as context? In the sense that "yes its a condition" but it does not really "determine" the right to keep a pet or not in the example given. As the explanation says "why would a Londoner care about NYC laws regarding pets?" Would saying that everything that falls outside of the domain is "whataboutism"? It's irrelevant to consider those things outside of the 'context' of the premise.
So if I'd say:
Only black cats with four paws who are nice and like salmon are allowed in the house.
domain: "black cats with four paws"
rule: "nice and like salmon -> in the house"
Here "black cats with four paws" is the context in which my rule applies, right?
Basically (oversimplified)
When you see tons of sufficient conditions, just focus on the ones that are most important. How do you know they're important? They can be argued or contested (I think).
The first 2 listed arent as important. 3 and 4 are important so just focus on those. Prioritize the important sufficient conditions and set aside the not-so-important ones.
Did i get it right or miss anything?