I am also confused about number 3. I remember when he talked about group 4, and he discussed "None of the Americans attended the dictator's party" led to ADP → /A, so why, when, No sales technique can succeed that does not get the potential buyer to emotionally connect with the product being sold. Why wouldn't it be Success ---> / emotionally connect because we had an indicator, "not" so we have to acknowledge it, just like how we had to for " none of the Americans" example, it said None, so we had to make something negated.
I am a little confused with Question 1 because to me it seems like this sentence is from group 3 right? so it would start as /survive ----> atm carb but then we would do the contrapositive so it would be / atm -----> survive so why did he end up doing / atm----> / surv? #help
I could be extremely wrong so take this with a grain of sand but the domain is something that you already know you need for the sentence to make sense.
He overcomplicates with the explanation but to make it easier for everyone my tip is to work it out like a normal problem we were taught then push up the things you need for the sentence to make sense.
For example:
"If the dog barks, only then it will get in trouble"
Take your sufficient and necessary clauses like you were taught then kick up the rest so for example
Bark -> trouble
You kick up dog because you know if their talking about any other animal the sentence isn't valid.
For another example lets use question 4, you know you have to kick up Journalism because you know if they talk about any other form of writing the sentence is invalid. (Fiction =/= Journalism) therefore replacing journalism would render the whole clause invalid.
I think this whole lesson is about moving the information you already know needs to be true in order to better focus on what the sentence doesn't answer.
So do I have to use this kick it up method? I'm finding it much more confusing than clarifying when I'm reading. Is the LSAT going to ask questions like this? Like i have to identify chains and what not or?
I feel like this can be a useful tool to simplify when its a super long question with multiple sufficiencies. But on Question #4, when its short and simple enough, going to the trouble of "kicking up" one singular word in journalism into the domain, just overcomplicates it. That question is easy enough to understand on its own, like we have been doing in past exercises, so why make it more confusing than it needs to be?
Could you not also say that "plant" is simply a modifier to the clause "life cannot survive"?
Here we identify plant life as being a sufficiency, moreover one that can be kicked up in the domain. But why wouldn't plant just be modifying the statement that life cannot survive? Well what kind of life, oh, plant life.
Are they both correct usages of these techniques, since a lot of these interpretations are simply subjective to provide you with tools to better understand a question, or is one more right than the other for a particular reason?
I feel like it would be helpful for the instructor to clarify that this is not a one size fits all "tool" and if it doesn't work for you, it's not the end of the world. Reminder for the comments that these are just tools to help, not the end all be all to success. #feedback
Original necessary-side clause (inside the NH domain):
“it should be provided by an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health.”
7Sage turns that into an org-conditional:
should provide -> PPPH
contrapositive: /PPPH -> /should provide
But LSAT Hacks points out the key issue: “should be provided by X” does not automatically mean “only X should provide.” It can mean “X should (at least) provide it,” while not ruling out that others also provide it. LSAT Hacks says it would only bar others if it said “should ONLY be provided by …”.
So, in baby arrows:
What the sentence clearly gives: NH -> (should be provided by a PPPH org)
What 7Sage adds (needs “ONLY”): (should provide) -> PPPH
Quick sanity check (why “an” matters)
The clause says “an organization” (existence vibe), not “only organizations” or “no other organizations.” That’s exactly why LSAT Hacks says you’d need “ONLY” to justify excluding non-PPPH providers.
Bottom line
Their first line (NH → should-provide-by-PPPH) is fine.
Their later step (/PPPH → /should provide) is not guaranteed by the wording unless you treat “should be provided by” as implicitly “should only be provided by.” LSAT Hacks argues LSAC would have said “only” if that’s what they meant.
Hi friends, I'm consistently doing really great on these skill builder exercises, but when it comes to actual practice questions, I am either getting the answers wrong or am taking an absurd amount of time to get the correct answer. Does anyone have any tips on how to improve my actual PT scores with this information in mind without it bogging down my timing and how to translate these skills into the actual test questions? #plshelp
I solved Q5 the way he did it in the beginning, he said it was accurate. But gave another example to do it, which to me is a bit more complicated. Should I stick to how I make sense of it? Can I keep doing it like that?
Now we are left with "it should be provided by an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health." What is the rule of this sentence? I read it as "if something is to be provided, it should be from an OPPPH.
So in conclusion,
Domain: Things necessary for human health
Rule: If provided -> Should be from an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health.
No one freak out. I think this is more of a mind exercise. It overcomplicates things when it's really about grasping the main subjects of the necessary and sufficient conditionals without extra noise. Question five in particular is a little silly. It would be a lot more helpful with real LSAT questions, since question five is relatively easy to grasp without kicking it up to the domain.
I didn't make the connection for q5. The way I read the statement, I thought it was saying that, if you are an org whose primary purpose is the promotion of health, you should be providing the "something necessary" vs not providing it, not necessarily making a judgement on other organizations. Am I thinking about it totally wrong? I feel like introducing the domain in this example completely changes the argument.
Q5 for me felt like my brain was getting scrambled. I thought I understood the statement and that it was straight forward, then by the end of the explanation I was like, did I actually understand this? Do I even understand it now? How can I practice contrapositive extrapolation to the point where it just automatically happens in my mind without spending 20 minutes analyzing a question, which, by the end of it all, I might not even understand better than if I just went with my intuition? This feels rather discouraging lol
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.
398 comments
I am also confused about number 3. I remember when he talked about group 4, and he discussed "None of the Americans attended the dictator's party" led to ADP → /A, so why, when, No sales technique can succeed that does not get the potential buyer to emotionally connect with the product being sold. Why wouldn't it be Success ---> / emotionally connect because we had an indicator, "not" so we have to acknowledge it, just like how we had to for " none of the Americans" example, it said None, so we had to make something negated.
I am a little confused with Question 1 because to me it seems like this sentence is from group 3 right? so it would start as /survive ----> atm carb but then we would do the contrapositive so it would be / atm -----> survive so why did he end up doing / atm----> / surv? #help
So I get in a weird way,
I could be extremely wrong so take this with a grain of sand but the domain is something that you already know you need for the sentence to make sense.
He overcomplicates with the explanation but to make it easier for everyone my tip is to work it out like a normal problem we were taught then push up the things you need for the sentence to make sense.
For example:
"If the dog barks, only then it will get in trouble"
Take your sufficient and necessary clauses like you were taught then kick up the rest so for example
Bark -> trouble
You kick up dog because you know if their talking about any other animal the sentence isn't valid.
For another example lets use question 4, you know you have to kick up Journalism because you know if they talk about any other form of writing the sentence is invalid. (Fiction =/= Journalism) therefore replacing journalism would render the whole clause invalid.
I think this whole lesson is about moving the information you already know needs to be true in order to better focus on what the sentence doesn't answer.
why couldnt suceed be negated in q.3?
So do I have to use this kick it up method? I'm finding it much more confusing than clarifying when I'm reading. Is the LSAT going to ask questions like this? Like i have to identify chains and what not or?
honestly i have no idea whats going on
I feel like this can be a useful tool to simplify when its a super long question with multiple sufficiencies. But on Question #4, when its short and simple enough, going to the trouble of "kicking up" one singular word in journalism into the domain, just overcomplicates it. That question is easy enough to understand on its own, like we have been doing in past exercises, so why make it more confusing than it needs to be?
The same can be said for Question #1.
Could you not also say that "plant" is simply a modifier to the clause "life cannot survive"?
Here we identify plant life as being a sufficiency, moreover one that can be kicked up in the domain. But why wouldn't plant just be modifying the statement that life cannot survive? Well what kind of life, oh, plant life.
Are they both correct usages of these techniques, since a lot of these interpretations are simply subjective to provide you with tools to better understand a question, or is one more right than the other for a particular reason?
I feel like it would be helpful for the instructor to clarify that this is not a one size fits all "tool" and if it doesn't work for you, it's not the end of the world. Reminder for the comments that these are just tools to help, not the end all be all to success. #feedback
This is wrong loll.
Where 7Sage goes beyond the wording:
Original necessary-side clause (inside the NH domain):
7Sage turns that into an org-conditional:
should provide -> PPPH
contrapositive: /PPPH -> /should provide
But LSAT Hacks points out the key issue: “should be provided by X” does not automatically mean “only X should provide.” It can mean “X should (at least) provide it,” while not ruling out that others also provide it. LSAT Hacks says it would only bar others if it said “should ONLY be provided by …”.
So, in baby arrows:
What the sentence clearly gives: NH -> (should be provided by a PPPH org)
What 7Sage adds (needs “ONLY”): (should provide) -> PPPH
Quick sanity check (why “an” matters)
The clause says “an organization” (existence vibe), not “only organizations” or “no other organizations.” That’s exactly why LSAT Hacks says you’d need “ONLY” to justify excluding non-PPPH providers.
Bottom line
Their first line (NH → should-provide-by-PPPH) is fine.
Their later step (/PPPH → /should provide) is not guaranteed by the wording unless you treat “should be provided by” as implicitly “should only be provided by.” LSAT Hacks argues LSAC would have said “only” if that’s what they meant.
Hi friends, I'm consistently doing really great on these skill builder exercises, but when it comes to actual practice questions, I am either getting the answers wrong or am taking an absurd amount of time to get the correct answer. Does anyone have any tips on how to improve my actual PT scores with this information in mind without it bogging down my timing and how to translate these skills into the actual test questions? #plshelp
If we can still see the conditional relationship, I don't understand why we even have to tease out the domain. I don't understand the purpose
I solved Q5 the way he did it in the beginning, he said it was accurate. But gave another example to do it, which to me is a bit more complicated. Should I stick to how I make sense of it? Can I keep doing it like that?
This seems like how you would train AI on the LSAT, not humans lol.
What. Is. Going. On. Here. Everything I learned so far is in question after trying this set.
For #3, I had recognized "does not" as the conditional indicator, so originally, my Lawgic translation was:
emotional connection --> succeed
After watching the video, I realize that the "no" in "no sales technique" was identified as the conditional indicator.
My question is: should I always defer to the first conditional indicator in a sentence?
I originally translated the phrase into
NHH -> SPOPPPH
And then I kicked up NHH up to the domain
Domain: NHH
Now we are left with "it should be provided by an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health." What is the rule of this sentence? I read it as "if something is to be provided, it should be from an OPPPH.
So in conclusion,
Domain: Things necessary for human health
Rule: If provided -> Should be from an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health.
the mere idea of rearranging the words for it to make better sense is blowing my mind. this is really algebraic.
Is anyone applying for this cycle fall 2026, or are yall waiting for 2027.
No one freak out. I think this is more of a mind exercise. It overcomplicates things when it's really about grasping the main subjects of the necessary and sufficient conditionals without extra noise. Question five in particular is a little silly. It would be a lot more helpful with real LSAT questions, since question five is relatively easy to grasp without kicking it up to the domain.
I didn't make the connection for q5. The way I read the statement, I thought it was saying that, if you are an org whose primary purpose is the promotion of health, you should be providing the "something necessary" vs not providing it, not necessarily making a judgement on other organizations. Am I thinking about it totally wrong? I feel like introducing the domain in this example completely changes the argument.
Q5 for me felt like my brain was getting scrambled. I thought I understood the statement and that it was straight forward, then by the end of the explanation I was like, did I actually understand this? Do I even understand it now? How can I practice contrapositive extrapolation to the point where it just automatically happens in my mind without spending 20 minutes analyzing a question, which, by the end of it all, I might not even understand better than if I just went with my intuition? This feels rather discouraging lol
For Q5, is it okay to say: “should be provided-> org + primary purpose” ?
Years of my life have been lost :(