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.
I've been trying to understand conditional relationships conceptually instead of just memorizing the rules but I have run into an issue.
Domain: Beresford Resident
Prohibited ---> /MedicalPurpose
Isn't /MedicalPurposeNecessary in the prohibition of an apt pet (since all residents are held to that rule)? Doesn't the unless preclude all other reasons that apt. pets could be prohibited?
wait I kind of don't get why we have to use these frameworks like can't we just say that the "all residents of the Beresford" is the domain and translate the rest like : if you have a Pet-->medical pupose. Any guidance would be appreciated!
I feel the most confident using the Joint Sufficient Condition Framework, but I wanted to confirm if my thinking is correct.
If I wanted to apply two separate conditionals, should I put whatever I see first at the core, and then just build onto that core as I encounter by putting it on the outside?
In the example
All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose.
Am I wrong in assuming that the sufficient condition of being a resident can immediately be "kicked into the domain" given the fact that the rule simply can't apply if the Answer Choices aren't referencing residents?
That would leave the conditional: /purpose -> prohibited as this applies to all residents but only residents?
I started the day with this lesson but quickly realized I was super lost so I went back and reviewed everything in this module. Happy to say that I just went through this lesson at the end of the day, and it's definitely making a lot more sense! I recommend doing the same if you are confused.
Glad im not alone in being totally lost, just when I thought I was beginning to get the hang of it lol
7
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!
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.
134 comments
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.
#Help
I've been trying to understand conditional relationships conceptually instead of just memorizing the rules but I have run into an issue.
Prohibited ---> /MedicalPurpose
Isn't /MedicalPurpose Necessary in the prohibition of an apt pet (since all residents are held to that rule)? Doesn't the unless preclude all other reasons that apt. pets could be prohibited?
wait I kind of don't get why we have to use these frameworks like can't we just say that the "all residents of the Beresford" is the domain and translate the rest like : if you have a Pet-->medical pupose. Any guidance would be appreciated!
I feel the most confident using the Joint Sufficient Condition Framework, but I wanted to confirm if my thinking is correct.
If I wanted to apply two separate conditionals, should I put whatever I see first at the core, and then just build onto that core as I encounter by putting it on the outside?
In the example
All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose.
Should I do "all" (Group 1) first:
Residents -> prohibited
And then I tack on "unless" (Group 3):
/purpose(residents->prohibited)
Is this a viable framework?
Horrible explanation, many thanks!
Am I wrong in assuming that the sufficient condition of being a resident can immediately be "kicked into the domain" given the fact that the rule simply can't apply if the Answer Choices aren't referencing residents?
That would leave the conditional: /purpose -> prohibited as this applies to all residents but only residents?
do we have to use all of these options or if I understand 1 and 3 better is that enough?#feedback
I am super lost. I need to review this lesson with my fresh brain lol...
GUYS. it just clicked
I started the day with this lesson but quickly realized I was super lost so I went back and reviewed everything in this module. Happy to say that I just went through this lesson at the end of the day, and it's definitely making a lot more sense! I recommend doing the same if you are confused.
I guess you're supposed to choose which framework feels the most intuitive.
Glad im not alone in being totally lost, just when I thought I was beginning to get the hang of it lol