This just feels like an overexplanation of the negation lessons. Why not just take the rule and the exception as an exclusion conjunction and apply the flip/ negate strategy? Is there a reason this shouldn't be the most obvious solution? I got the same results as the video using this strategy... why do I need more options that are just gonna cloud my intuition?
this is frustrating and a time waster: a simply explanation as to WHY the Exception is needed above the usual group 3 method would greatly simplify thingsl Pilling on new methods without a rationale is a time waster when time is precious. Here's a rule: if it's taught -- explain why we should invest hours or days into learning it.
@AnaColuma During the exam, you will come across a lot of complex biconditionals/ embedded conditionals. esp with a time crunch, it all comes down to understanding which side of the arrow clauses actually go on, and how each conditional relates to one another! Trust. It also facilitates intuitive understanding, translating complex ideas into simpler logic/ finding their logical equivalence with ease
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?
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.
180 comments
In the Domain framework can I use being a resident as the domain? So it'd look like this.
Domain: Resident of the Beresford
Rule 1: /purpose -> prohibited
Rule 2: /prohibited -> purpose
We still wouldn't know what happens if the purpose condition is satisfied.
This will make so much sense later. Bookmark this lesson and come back to it later.
I am 5 months in, and this is only now finally clicking after many wrong questions and countless classes with 7sage's AMAZING teachers.
Overstimulated
im so confused when it is appropriate to use each of these methods?
Any study groups ?
@MaryGraceForever lets make one! I badly need one especially after todays lessons .. I feel so lost
@LindaLopez I'm interested!
@MaryGraceForever let me know!
This one actually made sense to me.. after watching it twice. The one before it didn't
dude.....what
The more these things are explained, the more confused I get
This just feels like an overexplanation of the negation lessons. Why not just take the rule and the exception as an exclusion conjunction and apply the flip/ negate strategy? Is there a reason this shouldn't be the most obvious solution? I got the same results as the video using this strategy... why do I need more options that are just gonna cloud my intuition?
How could this section be given a length of 3 minutes in the study plan if the video in it is more than 9 minutes long?
i feel like this might be overcomplicating something intuitive? or maybe i'm really not understanding?
@jmcconnell1 I feel the exact same way. Maybe we our opinion will change when we get some difficult questions.
@Wallen Agree, I think I’ll understand more when I see this stuff in context of questions?
can't you just say
For Beresford residents:
Pet allowed -> Medical purpose
or
~Medical purpose -> ~pet allowed
I feel like all the approaches over complicate this issue if you can just translate using the original negate sufficient rules from earlier
2nd Framework is the same as the example from embedded conditionals, no? They are logically equivalent?
this is frustrating and a time waster: a simply explanation as to WHY the Exception is needed above the usual group 3 method would greatly simplify thingsl Pilling on new methods without a rationale is a time waster when time is precious. Here's a rule: if it's taught -- explain why we should invest hours or days into learning it.
I honestly feel the first one makes the more sense to me. I think they provide three different types of frameworks bc everyone's brain is different.
I'm just confused on how this will actually help during the test
@AnaColuma During the exam, you will come across a lot of complex biconditionals/ embedded conditionals. esp with a time crunch, it all comes down to understanding which side of the arrow clauses actually go on, and how each conditional relates to one another! Trust. It also facilitates intuitive understanding, translating complex ideas into simpler logic/ finding their logical equivalence with ease
My brain just don’t want to comprehend the 2nd one
I’m confused so when we have an unless statement we don’t use the group 3 rule, so how do we know when and when not to use it?
/prohibited --> medical purpose
/medical purpose --> prohibited
can it be represented as such?
@lsatjasg Yes since it's just the contrapositive. Not prohibited then serves a medical purpose. Doesn't serve a medical purpose then prohibited.
I'll just learn the first...
yeah idk lol
For Join Sufficient condition framework do we always follow group 1 and 3 translations only?
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?