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?
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]."
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.
3
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.
88 comments
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?
Why are you allowed to join "open and notoriously" as OpNo? Couldn't you keep a pet openly, but not notoriously, and vice versa?
my brain refuses to under stand this. sorry
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]."
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.