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]."
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!
@NathanielWright Agreed. I see where this has its uses and maybe I will come back to this when I start doing actual questions, but it feels like it's taking something that's more intuitive (at least for me) and making it really complicated.
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.
@8M_M8 Agreed, I feel like LSAT questions should be inserted throughout each lesson as we go along, so we can get familiar with how to apply these methods. Smh, it's a lot to remember.
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.
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.
96 comments
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]."
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??
@Seattleite
@benfikhman the first thing that came to my mind lololllll
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
@NathanielWright Agreed. I see where this has its uses and maybe I will come back to this when I start doing actual questions, but it feels like it's taking something that's more intuitive (at least for me) and making it really complicated.
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.
@2Mac Same here. This is difficult to understand. And I am team Stanley :)
@2Mac Stanley!!!!!
looks like a chemistry equation lol
An example of a real LSAT question should be inserted in this lesson.
@8M_M8 Agreed, I feel like LSAT questions should be inserted throughout each lesson as we go along, so we can get familiar with how to apply these methods. Smh, it's a lot to remember.
@Shannell_E'llan agree 100%
@Shannell_E'llan I could not agree more! @ 7sage team please add more questions after the lessons!!! #feedback
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?