If you've gotten this far, you're definitely committed and your persistence should be lauded. Especially if you majored in the humanities/arts and this is new information to you. I hope you know that it is ok to take time to digest this information and rewatch parts of the lesson because your focus wandered. We'll get through this and we're doing great.
I feel as though showing us practical applications of this knowledge, or informing us of the how we need to use this on the LSAT would be super helpful. The last few Logic questions seem excessively trying to convolute relatively simple sentences.
@gsos1719735 These last few lessons at the end of this module are to help us answer only the hardest LR questions. If you are not trying to get a perfect/near perfect score, then you're right; you probably don't need these.
@WilRothman Exactly. This didn't do anything but confuse me the first time around. I am now trying to clean up the edges and get my 170s to 175+ more consistently than I currently am, and this shit is what has been screwing me over!! thankful now, but still a little confusing.
I have gotten to the point where I am beginning to just skim through the last couple lessons in this set because it seems to be making these more complicated than it needs to be. I could be wrong later on, but that seems to be the case.
im really confused on the last couple of lessons (kick it up in the domain to embedded conditionals). can i skim through these or do i need to understand this for the lsat?
I feel like this past few lessons have confused me even more - also, who has the time to do all these lawgic translations when we have 1min per question lol
I think you're supposed to practice enough times to where it becomes 2nd hand nature for you to digest such passages/sentences. But I agree, these past couple sections have confused me like no other. I think I'm going to study but then come back to them because nothing makes sense to me.
Hey all, I found videos for Embedded Conditionals in the V1 version of the course. They’re under the “Advanced Logic” subsection of the V1 Logical Reasoning section. (You need to go to the Syllabus page and then click “Switch to V1” for these links to work)
Am I the only one who understands the questions in regular verbiage more than in "Lawgic" terms? The more I try and understand this Lawgic notion, the more I get confused..
I think understanding these in simple terms makes sense but once there is more jargon that might not be the case which is why they are doing it that way.
I came back to this lesson after finishing the remainder of the CC, doing a lot of live classes and drilling and now it makes sense. It is not necessary to understand this lesson for 99% of the LSAT questions I have seen so far.
For anyone who is just going through the CC for the first time, give yourself a break and move on from this lesson and come back in a month or so and it will make way more sense to you!
it is a little frustrating to use the same example over and over again for these techniques instead of new ones. i think already having an understanding of the rule of this example obscures the usefulness of the technique
@paulding77 Agree, it is like when your math teacher uses the same examples in lessons and you think you understand it, only to use an abstract/never before seen problem on the test when it matters. LOL
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".
Seeing a lot of comments like "I feel like this is so confusing and not helpful." These lessons are supposed to be confusing and not make sense right away. The moderators go out of their way to mention that at the beginning of each of the videos and in the text. The idea is to get you to think about sentence structure and do it enough so when reading complicated passages you automatically begin to separate clauses, identify conditionals and come to the correct logical conclusions. It isn't supposed to make sense right away, that is why it adds value. If you understood it before, you wouldn't need the class.
I read this lesson back in July and was super confused. After doing some LR units and drilling, I understand what this is saying completely. Not sure of how or when I'll use this technique but I'm sure it'll come to me after some more months of work.
To make your lives much easier get the loop hole book review chapter 4 which is pretty much this whole section simplified memorize the indicators and the different types of conditions or like I call them formulas lol and this will become easy. Coming from someone who was confused like a MF two months ago I noticed that I didnt understand the sufficient necessary stuff because my ass didnt wanna memorize lol
185 comments
I swear these last few lessons are just trying to confuse people who understood this section from the beginning
nah fr
If you've gotten this far, you're definitely committed and your persistence should be lauded. Especially if you majored in the humanities/arts and this is new information to you. I hope you know that it is ok to take time to digest this information and rewatch parts of the lesson because your focus wandered. We'll get through this and we're doing great.
Thank you- I needed to hear this 😭. The last few modules got progressively harder to understand. But not giving up.
Same, thank you! I ran to the comments because the last couple lessons are difficult to understand and I wanted to know if others felt the same
I feel as though showing us practical applications of this knowledge, or informing us of the how we need to use this on the LSAT would be super helpful. The last few Logic questions seem excessively trying to convolute relatively simple sentences.
@gsos1719735 These last few lessons at the end of this module are to help us answer only the hardest LR questions. If you are not trying to get a perfect/near perfect score, then you're right; you probably don't need these.
@WilRothman Exactly. This didn't do anything but confuse me the first time around. I am now trying to clean up the edges and get my 170s to 175+ more consistently than I currently am, and this shit is what has been screwing me over!! thankful now, but still a little confusing.
what
I have gotten to the point where I am beginning to just skim through the last couple lessons in this set because it seems to be making these more complicated than it needs to be. I could be wrong later on, but that seems to be the case.
Same here. I just skimmed this lesson. I can come back to it later, once I've encountered a question that requires this rule application.
im really confused on the last couple of lessons (kick it up in the domain to embedded conditionals). can i skim through these or do i need to understand this for the lsat?
Same is this something of great importance or is it just good to know?
#feedback
Did you ever apply these last few lessons to an actual practice exam? Or were you fine without them?
I get it but also I think I'm having a stroke
Yeah, I had to reread the first few paragraphs a couple of times. My understanding is pretty much:
A -> (B or C) is the same as
A -> (-B -> C) is the same as
(A and -B) -> C is the same as
(A and -C) -> C ... and so on.
We can move the statements associated with the letters as we please in order to draw up a passage and reading that is more comprehensible.
There's no way people are doing this on the exam...
real
we went from digestible information to rocket science
literally suffering through the last 3 lessons fr.
chile....
I feel like this past few lessons have confused me even more - also, who has the time to do all these lawgic translations when we have 1min per question lol
I think you're supposed to practice enough times to where it becomes 2nd hand nature for you to digest such passages/sentences. But I agree, these past couple sections have confused me like no other. I think I'm going to study but then come back to them because nothing makes sense to me.
This is exactly what I've been wondering this entire time.
sometimes you just have to come back to something 2 months later to understand it
It just keeps getting more complicated
how do we know when to use it?
@marlenevelazquez #help
Hey all, I found videos for Embedded Conditionals in the V1 version of the course. They’re under the “Advanced Logic” subsection of the V1 Logical Reasoning section. (You need to go to the Syllabus page and then click “Switch to V1” for these links to work)
https://7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/
https://7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional-proof
Watch those V1 videos and then read the V2 lesson to review and then this might be less daunting!
I clicked on the links and the lesson is no longer there only the comments. Anyone else having the same issue?
I agree, went back to V1 and then back here. It helped a lot, thank you!
Am I the only one who understands the questions in regular verbiage more than in "Lawgic" terms? The more I try and understand this Lawgic notion, the more I get confused..
I think understanding these in simple terms makes sense but once there is more jargon that might not be the case which is why they are doing it that way.
I completely agree. Maybe because it's written out??
lol wth is this!!
@Reddrum0911 SAMEEEE BRUUU
@Reddrum0911 lmaooooo
I might as well read this in German lol
I came back to this lesson after finishing the remainder of the CC, doing a lot of live classes and drilling and now it makes sense. It is not necessary to understand this lesson for 99% of the LSAT questions I have seen so far.
For anyone who is just going through the CC for the first time, give yourself a break and move on from this lesson and come back in a month or so and it will make way more sense to you!
Thank you for saying this! I wasn't getting it either and was stressing over it haha
You're so real for mentioning this because I have been lost for the past 5 or so lessons and felt really bad about it lol
it is a little frustrating to use the same example over and over again for these techniques instead of new ones. i think already having an understanding of the rule of this example obscures the usefulness of the technique
@paulding77 Agree, it is like when your math teacher uses the same examples in lessons and you think you understand it, only to use an abstract/never before seen problem on the test when it matters. LOL
if you are reading this, you got this!! I believe in you!
@SusanLeifker You too girl!!!
@NhubriaChikaka ty!!!
he said peepee lol
@CeciliaBurton1 #futurelawersofamerica
this audio is hard to listen to <3
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".
@mahi0615 u MAKE MORE SENSE THAN THE VIDEO
@ratman23 I'm flattered haha
this is literally algebra atp 😀
Seeing a lot of comments like "I feel like this is so confusing and not helpful." These lessons are supposed to be confusing and not make sense right away. The moderators go out of their way to mention that at the beginning of each of the videos and in the text. The idea is to get you to think about sentence structure and do it enough so when reading complicated passages you automatically begin to separate clauses, identify conditionals and come to the correct logical conclusions. It isn't supposed to make sense right away, that is why it adds value. If you understood it before, you wouldn't need the class.
Ditto. I agree and I'm proof.
I read this lesson back in July and was super confused. After doing some LR units and drilling, I understand what this is saying completely. Not sure of how or when I'll use this technique but I'm sure it'll come to me after some more months of work.
To make your lives much easier get the loop hole book review chapter 4 which is pretty much this whole section simplified memorize the indicators and the different types of conditions or like I call them formulas lol and this will become easy. Coming from someone who was confused like a MF two months ago I noticed that I didnt understand the sufficient necessary stuff because my ass didnt wanna memorize lol