I have a suggestion after reviewing the lesson multiple times over more than a 6 month period. I was confused with this technique because for me initially I looked at the first step as creating the conjunct. I broke it down like this, and using CC on the video helped me as well, to understand. (1) Write the Rule, (2) Apply the translation rule, (3) Take the inside sufficient condition from the embedded condition and create a conjunction with the outside necessary condition. I, also would like to make the recommendation on the review slide to label ( Embedded Sufficient Condition, Embedded Necessary Condition, and Outside Necessary Condition). When looking at the review slide I did not at first know what to distinguish, until I caught myself reviewing the lessons multiple times and using CC, to see what I was missing. For, me as I have used 7 sage just watching the video without CC has caused me to miss things. I hope this is helpful.
I don't get why you can replace the 'or' for an arrow. Which lesson was this? I remember the negation and then flipping the two sides of the arrow, but not switching in between arrows and 'or' statements
okay i understand when the sentance uses the indicator "or" but what if the embedded sentences dont use "or" how are we supposed to simplify the embedded conditional. and the example he gives, to me is more of a normal conditional with a disjunction in the necessary position. why do we consider this an embedded conditional?
just to clarify, does A and B --> C mean the same as (A and B) --> C? Like the statement is NOT A, also B --> C? The parenthesis existing sometimes but not always is a bit hard to wrap one's head around, especially with any background in math. thank you!
Hmm, i understand and have no questions but feel that: if one tries this on the exam, then one will use lots time. if one uses a lot of time, then one will fail the test.
Commenting to come back to this if I need to. To make sure I do, here's a question people can respond to: if you could eliminate one type of question from the logical reasoning section, what would it be? I would chuck all the assumption questions out the window because I'm terrible at making assumptions in real life, so on tests I really struggle with this!
I think I've figured out where I'm struggling with this: how do we know we're dealing with an embedded conditional? Is it by identifying multiple conditional relationships indicated by structural indicators in the same sentence or even multiple conditional relationships without conditionals?
When it comes to embedded conditionals is there a table explaining variations of
A → (B → C) becomes A and B → C?
How is "B or C" translating to "/B → C?" (and vice versa).
I am trying to understand how to "pull the inside sufficient condition out and make it a sufficient conjunct in the outside conditional" .
Is there a section / lesson online explaining how this works? and all the various permutations and combinations of "if then" conditionals and how they translate to AND (&) OR (or) relationships?
For example I know that if I negate (A&B) I get :
(A&B) = /A or /B
So my question is what are the rules for opening up the brackets of a conditional as in A → (B → C) ?
Let me try it here:
Given
(A-> B)= (/A or B) (1)
(A-> B)= /(A & /B) (2)
How would you bring B in A → (B → C) out of the brackets?
A-> (/B or C) (from 1)
converting the remaining conditional
/A or (/B or C) (from 1)
opening up the brackets
/A or /B or C
bracketing /A or /B:
(/A or /B) or C
converting the right most or into a conditional
/(/A or /B) -> C
distributing the outermost not
(A & B ) -> C
Ok so I was able to derive that after all that effort but its not obvious, is it?
1
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.
150 comments
I have a suggestion after reviewing the lesson multiple times over more than a 6 month period. I was confused with this technique because for me initially I looked at the first step as creating the conjunct. I broke it down like this, and using CC on the video helped me as well, to understand. (1) Write the Rule, (2) Apply the translation rule, (3) Take the inside sufficient condition from the embedded condition and create a conjunction with the outside necessary condition. I, also would like to make the recommendation on the review slide to label ( Embedded Sufficient Condition, Embedded Necessary Condition, and Outside Necessary Condition). When looking at the review slide I did not at first know what to distinguish, until I caught myself reviewing the lessons multiple times and using CC, to see what I was missing. For, me as I have used 7 sage just watching the video without CC has caused me to miss things. I hope this is helpful.
I don't get why you can replace the 'or' for an arrow. Which lesson was this? I remember the negation and then flipping the two sides of the arrow, but not switching in between arrows and 'or' statements
If I go to the Gym on Sunday, then I will do cardio OR lift weights.
Gym on Sunday --> Cardio OR lift weights
Gym on Sunday --> (/Cardio OR lift weights)
Gym on sunday and /Cardio --> Lift weights
how do we know when to use it?
this audio is hard to listen to <3
If the toddler throws a tantrum then they're tired or mad.
tantrum --> tired or mad
tantrum --> (/mad --> tired)
tantrum and /mad --> tired
okay i understand when the sentance uses the indicator "or" but what if the embedded sentences dont use "or" how are we supposed to simplify the embedded conditional. and the example he gives, to me is more of a normal conditional with a disjunction in the necessary position. why do we consider this an embedded conditional?
can someone please explain how it went from B10+ -> (R or /OpNo) to B10+ (OpNo -> R)? Did I forget a rule? That part is tripping me up.
If Jack walks he will go to the store or the movies.
Jack walks → store or movie
It becomes
Jack walks → /store → movies
Jack walks → store →/movies
just to clarify, does A and B --> C mean the same as (A and B) --> C? Like the statement is NOT A, also B --> C? The parenthesis existing sometimes but not always is a bit hard to wrap one's head around, especially with any background in math. thank you!
if you are reading this, you got this!! I believe in you!
A team who won the NBA finals must have scored more during regular time or scored more in overtime.
Won the NBA Finals--> (Scored more during Regular time OR scored more in Overtime)
Won the NBA Finals--> (/Score more during Regular time--> Scored more in Overtime)
Won the NBA finals-->(/Score more in Overtime--> Scored more in Overtime)
Pulling the embedded sufficient condition would be
Won the NBA Finals AND /Score more during Regular time--> Scored more in Overtime
Won the NBA Finals AND /Score more in Overtime--> Scored more during Regular time
This method makes it easier to identify the options that lead to a conclusion.
Hmm, i understand and have no questions but feel that: if one tries this on the exam, then one will use lots time. if one uses a lot of time, then one will fail the test.
TT > UT
UT > FT
TT > UT > FT
i haven't been confused until parenthesis started being involved. like what the heck even is this
Would you also be able to say:
NYC and PP -> /FT
NYC and FT -> /PP
Are you guys memorizing all of this? Who has made a cheat sheet? Haha and also who made a cheat sheet and found it useful for the actual exam?
this is literally algebra atp 😀
when would I have to use this?
It just keeps getting more complicated
Commenting to come back to this if I need to. To make sure I do, here's a question people can respond to: if you could eliminate one type of question from the logical reasoning section, what would it be? I would chuck all the assumption questions out the window because I'm terrible at making assumptions in real life, so on tests I really struggle with this!
does this still hold that B or C in A->B or C are jointly necessary?
I think I've figured out where I'm struggling with this: how do we know we're dealing with an embedded conditional? Is it by identifying multiple conditional relationships indicated by structural indicators in the same sentence or even multiple conditional relationships without conditionals?
he said peepee lol
I don’t know how I missed it: can someone point me to the lesson that talks specifically about what goes inside parenthesis? I feel dumb
When it comes to embedded conditionals is there a table explaining variations of
A → (B → C) becomes A and B → C?
How is "B or C" translating to "/B → C?" (and vice versa).
I am trying to understand how to "pull the inside sufficient condition out and make it a sufficient conjunct in the outside conditional" .
Is there a section / lesson online explaining how this works? and all the various permutations and combinations of "if then" conditionals and how they translate to AND (&) OR (or) relationships?
For example I know that if I negate (A&B) I get :
(A&B) = /A or /B
So my question is what are the rules for opening up the brackets of a conditional as in A → (B → C) ?
Let me try it here:
Given
(A-> B)= (/A or B) (1)
(A-> B)= /(A & /B) (2)
How would you bring B in A → (B → C) out of the brackets?
A-> (/B or C) (from 1)
converting the remaining conditional
/A or (/B or C) (from 1)
opening up the brackets
/A or /B or C
bracketing /A or /B:
(/A or /B) or C
converting the right most or into a conditional
/(/A or /B) -> C
distributing the outermost not
(A & B ) -> C
Ok so I was able to derive that after all that effort but its not obvious, is it?