This took my a while but I think I understand it in my own way: disjunctions show two alternatives if A then B happens or C happens. BUT an embedded conditional is when "if A then B happens and if B happens then that triggers something to happen in C".
this may be a stupid question, but how do you even know if you have an embedded conditional from the English text alone. I can obviously identify it in its logic form given the parentheses, but I am having trouble with identifying it when it is in English...
could someone help? do you have any other examples of English text that contains embedded conditionals?
Can embedded conditionals also apply to conjunctions in the NC? ex: if B then (A and C) becomes if B and A then C? and if a conditional for examples is /A-->(B-->C) becomes /A and B, then C? @KevinLin
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.
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?
6
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.
168 comments
WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING OMG --- THEY LOST ME AFTER "KICKING UP CONDITIONAL" IM ACTUALLY SOOO LOST ---MY MONEY GOING TO NOTHING AAAAAAAAAAAAA
Can someone clarify the difference between embedded conditionals v. conjunction.
lol wth is this!!
This took my a while but I think I understand it in my own way: disjunctions show two alternatives if A then B happens or C happens. BUT an embedded conditional is when "if A then B happens and if B happens then that triggers something to happen in C".
what's the difference between an embedded conditional and a disjunction?? this feels the same to me as the example:
If M gets adopted, either O gets adopted or P gets adopted
M --> O or P
this may be a stupid question, but how do you even know if you have an embedded conditional from the English text alone. I can obviously identify it in its logic form given the parentheses, but I am having trouble with identifying it when it is in English...
could someone help? do you have any other examples of English text that contains embedded conditionals?
This was how I understood it:
If a resident lives in a building with more than ten units...
If is a sufficient indicator so this statement is on the left B10+
then either she has an inalienable right to keep a pet or she has not kept that pet openly and notoriously.
Then is a necessary indicator so everything is on the right of the arrow because we must have this
R or /OpNo
We put it together
B10+ --> (R or /OpNo)
It still doesn't make sense so we follow the sufficient negate rule of (or)
So now my rule says
B10+ --> (OpNo or R)
Well I can make it even more clear and pull out the inside sufficient condition to make it a sufficient conjunct in the outside conditional
My Final rule says
B10+ and OpNo -->R
sometimes you just have to come back to something 2 months later to understand it
Can embedded conditionals also apply to conjunctions in the NC? ex: if B then (A and C) becomes if B and A then C? and if a conditional for examples is /A-->(B-->C) becomes /A and B, then C? @KevinLin
Thanks
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?