I'm wondering for the rule + exception framework if we have resident--->prohibited--->/purpose if our animal does serve a legitimate medical purpose so purpose then wouldn't the contrapositive be purpose--->/prohibited--->/resident? since being a resident requires the prohibition of keeping pets in their apartment wouldn't the chain just follow all the way through?
So under the statement "All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose," let's say your animal serves a legitimate medical purpose. Does the specific rule of prohibition here just not apply to you but we cannot explicitly conclude that you are allowed to keep it as a pet? As in you are not prohibited by this rule, but you are also not explicitly allowed, so this is what the lesson means when it says the rule "doesn't force a result either way" when you are inside the exception?
So poorly explained and overcomplicated. I like 7Sage but towards the end of this foundation you guy have really not done a great job. Just use the first rule. You need to identify the rule and the exception. When the exception happens then there is no rule. If the exception doesn't happen, then there is just the rule. That's it.
All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose. /purpose and resident -> prohibit. However, just because the animal does not serve a legitimate medical purpose does not mean "someone" is prohibited from keeping pets in their apartment. That "someone" must be a resident of The Beresford. If they have an animal that does not serve a legitimate medical purpose but are not a resident of The Beresford then the rule does not apply and they are not prohibited from keeping pets in their apartment. This may seem obvious in this example but the LSAT will try to trick you by having one part of the sufficient condition achieved but not the other.
I think the first and third frameworks are my favorite. You use lawgic but also don't need to go into every detail with it. It is both clear and efficient. I'm glad to know this is an option, because it makes sense with how I think!
For the joint sufficient condition, not only /purpose serves as the only sufficient condition, but also resident, since it is a conjunction. For example, if someone were to have an animal that serves a medical legitimate purpose but is not a resident, then the framework fails to trigger.
#help #feedback I am confused by the joint sufficient condition framework. I don't like the inconsistency. Isn't the group 3 translation law that you can pick either concepts, negate them, and make them sufficient?
So, would it not apply that you can translate it like:
(/Resident -> /prohibited ->) -> purpose
Then what do you do?
/Resident -> /prohibited and (or?) purpose
If you are not a resident, then you are not prohibited from having a pet (and?) (or?) the pet serves a legitimate medical purpose.
It does not make any sense. It's incredibly hard to follow when you ignore previously established rules. If we should always negate and make sufficient whatever comes after the unless in this particular instance, you should really make that clear.
Intuitively I would kick up resident to the domain and get
Domain: Resident
/purpose —> prohibit
/prohibit —> purpose,
But would mean the embedded conditional is
Resident —> (/purpose —> prohibit)
Is that logically equivalent to
/purpose —> (Resident —> prohibit)
?
Intuitively, I feel like the answer is yes, they are logically equivalent, because if you simplify the embedded conditional into their respective joint sufficient conditionals it would be
Resident + /purpose —> Prohibit
/purpose + Resident —> Prohibit
…which in my understanding ARE logically equivalent? Or does the order in which conjunct sufficient conditions appear affect the meaning of the conditional?
But I am confused because this means the English should say “All animals that don’t serve a legitimate medical purpose are prohibited unless you are a resident”…?
Am I misunderstanding something? Is there a scenario in which this would not work?
For Domain and Rule, could I kick up the resident? It's easier for me to assume that the person is a resident and that the prohibiting of them having a pet relies more so on if they have a medical purpose than if they don't.
I.E.
Domain: resident
/med purpose> prohibit
/prohibit> med purpose
(this works better for me logically simply because this rule wouldn't apply to anyone unless they were a resident, so like duh it's assumer we're talking about them)
I understand how you get to the conclusion but why is it silent on what happens if the animal serves a leg purpose?
For example:
/Animal does serve leg pur & Resident -> Prohibited
Can I not contrapositive this to:
/Prohibited -> Animal does serve leg pur or /Resident
Or does this mean that it is still silent on what happens when an animal does serve a leg purpose and we only know what happens when they are /prohibited? Sorry, I'm confused.
0
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.
148 comments
Are these all interchangeable? Do we need to understand how to do all three of them? Seems like 1 and 3 are most intuitive to me...
The 2nd Framework feels pretty intuitive. Again, love this curriculum. I can feel my brain expanding.
I'm wondering for the rule + exception framework if we have resident--->prohibited--->/purpose if our animal does serve a legitimate medical purpose so purpose then wouldn't the contrapositive be purpose--->/prohibited--->/resident? since being a resident requires the prohibition of keeping pets in their apartment wouldn't the chain just follow all the way through?
how do I know anything after Unless is "necessary", why is not like " resident /prohibited --> purpose "
then its not " /purpose ---> resident prohibit"
isn't this came to the same result?
The audio got better lets go!!!
So under the statement "All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose," let's say your animal serves a legitimate medical purpose. Does the specific rule of prohibition here just not apply to you but we cannot explicitly conclude that you are allowed to keep it as a pet? As in you are not prohibited by this rule, but you are also not explicitly allowed, so this is what the lesson means when it says the rule "doesn't force a result either way" when you are inside the exception?
I can't tell if I'm not smart enough to understand what they're explaining or I'm smart enough and they're just overexplaining it.
can someone explain this lesson better...... calling out the instructors
So poorly explained and overcomplicated. I like 7Sage but towards the end of this foundation you guy have really not done a great job. Just use the first rule. You need to identify the rule and the exception. When the exception happens then there is no rule. If the exception doesn't happen, then there is just the rule. That's it.
All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose. /purpose and resident -> prohibit. However, just because the animal does not serve a legitimate medical purpose does not mean "someone" is prohibited from keeping pets in their apartment. That "someone" must be a resident of The Beresford. If they have an animal that does not serve a legitimate medical purpose but are not a resident of The Beresford then the rule does not apply and they are not prohibited from keeping pets in their apartment. This may seem obvious in this example but the LSAT will try to trick you by having one part of the sufficient condition achieved but not the other.
I am so cooked broo
I think the first and third frameworks are my favorite. You use lawgic but also don't need to go into every detail with it. It is both clear and efficient. I'm glad to know this is an option, because it makes sense with how I think!
For the joint sufficient condition, not only /purpose serves as the only sufficient condition, but also resident, since it is a conjunction. For example, if someone were to have an animal that serves a medical legitimate purpose but is not a resident, then the framework fails to trigger.
what exactly is this? how are we supposed to understand what this even means? this is extremely poorly explained.
Yeah, no. Learned the first framework and my brain said no to the other two 😂
For the domain + rule framework, can we kick "resident" to the domain?
/Purpose --> Prohibit
/Prohibit --> Purpose
okay this but be a silly question but it is what it is. If we are to take the contrapositive of
/purpose --> (resident --> prohibit)
is it
/ (resident-->prohibit) --> purpose, where the negation applies to both resident and prohibit
OR is it
(/prohibit --> resident) --> purpose
OR is it
/(/prohibit -->resident) --> purpose
well this was humbling thanks :D
bro what the helly
#help #feedback I am confused by the joint sufficient condition framework. I don't like the inconsistency. Isn't the group 3 translation law that you can pick either concepts, negate them, and make them sufficient?
So, would it not apply that you can translate it like:
(/Resident -> /prohibited ->) -> purpose
Then what do you do?
/Resident -> /prohibited and (or?) purpose
If you are not a resident, then you are not prohibited from having a pet (and?) (or?) the pet serves a legitimate medical purpose.
It does not make any sense. It's incredibly hard to follow when you ignore previously established rules. If we should always negate and make sufficient whatever comes after the unless in this particular instance, you should really make that clear.
There has got to be an easier way to understand all of this? I am getting lost
the past couple slides have confused me so much and now im losing grasp of evrything i learned so far! any advice????!
#help
Intuitively I would kick up resident to the domain and get
Domain: Resident
/purpose —> prohibit
/prohibit —> purpose,
But would mean the embedded conditional is
Resident —> (/purpose —> prohibit)
Is that logically equivalent to
/purpose —> (Resident —> prohibit)
?
Intuitively, I feel like the answer is yes, they are logically equivalent, because if you simplify the embedded conditional into their respective joint sufficient conditionals it would be
Resident + /purpose —> Prohibit
/purpose + Resident —> Prohibit
…which in my understanding ARE logically equivalent? Or does the order in which conjunct sufficient conditions appear affect the meaning of the conditional?
But I am confused because this means the English should say “All animals that don’t serve a legitimate medical purpose are prohibited unless you are a resident”…?
Am I misunderstanding something? Is there a scenario in which this would not work?
For Domain and Rule, could I kick up the resident? It's easier for me to assume that the person is a resident and that the prohibiting of them having a pet relies more so on if they have a medical purpose than if they don't.
I.E.
Domain: resident
/med purpose> prohibit
/prohibit> med purpose
(this works better for me logically simply because this rule wouldn't apply to anyone unless they were a resident, so like duh it's assumer we're talking about them)
#Help
I understand how you get to the conclusion but why is it silent on what happens if the animal serves a leg purpose?
For example:
/Animal does serve leg pur & Resident -> Prohibited
Can I not contrapositive this to:
/Prohibited -> Animal does serve leg pur or /Resident
Or does this mean that it is still silent on what happens when an animal does serve a leg purpose and we only know what happens when they are /prohibited? Sorry, I'm confused.