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'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!
5
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.
167 comments
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?
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
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?
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?
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!