When they talk about the joint sufficient rule (or applying an embedded conditional), why are we focused on whether or not its within the rule instead of just using a conjunction on the sufficient condition. Take example 4:
Is this an accurate interpretation of the last one?
If knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, and they do not actually believe that it does not exist, then such knowledge is established.
Offense and /Belief it doesn't exist -> Established
Can I get some feedback? How I answered question 3 was:
O.Companies -> Pop. O
/Pop. O -> /O.Companies
/Funding and /Pop. O -> /O.Companies
Translated into english: If there is no funding from the National Endowment and it is not a popular opera, then the opera companies will not produce it.
Is this correct or am I just completely off track?
Why is it that in the original rule and exception lesson video, you point out that the rule does NOT apply if you are inside the exception, but now you're saying that we don't necessarily know if it applies or not if you are inside the exception?
I struggle with understanding of when to know to chain if you don't see a conditional indicator. Question 3, for example. What is supposed to trigger the mind to understand "oh! if there an opera company, then they must produce the most popular operas."?
Because when I first encountered this, I viewed it as one big condition, not embedded. I watched the "Conditionals without Indicators" video and took notes, but am still struggling a wee bit.
Came back to this after finishing the entire cc, and still took me an hour to somewhat understand what's being said. If you're learning these for the first time, go easy on yourself.
For question 1: I am confused why we are not treating "that relocated to this part of the forest" as a modifier. I don't understand why we are including it in the conditional. My first instinct was to read it as /(drive out poachers) -> /(Pandas Prosper)
5/5 — Something that helped me with these: I scan for words like “unless” or “if” first and read that part of the sentence before the rest. That helps me figure out what the sufficient condition (or exception) is before I build the rule. It makes the structure a lot less overwhelming.
When does the curriculum start tying things together? I've been working through the lessons consistently but actually applying these ideas to practice questions hasn't made them easier at all.
I'm literally lost. I tried completing these independently but had to watch the video to at least grasp what I am doing. I understand all the lessons before but this one is something else.
Rule : None of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper.
Exception: Unless we drive out the poachers"
Normally, I would interpret this to meaning that driving out the poachers would mean that the pandas will prosper. But, somehow, this assumption is wrong. I am confused why this is wrong, and would appreciate any clarity on this would be appreciated
Something is missing in my foundational understanding here. I’ve gotten these questions wrong, and I’m not sure if it’s because I’m struggling to translate into “lawgic” once conjunctions were introduced—or when the conjunctions are negated.
Maybe I need to memorize the conditional indicators more thoroughly. I know the sufficient condition goes on the left side of the arrow and the necessary condition goes on the right, but when these practice questions come up, I keep second-guessing myself and end up flipping them. Am I overcomplicating this, or am I just misreading the statements?
I wasn’t having trouble translating into logic before these extra elements got added into the equation (no pun intended) lol.
I'm really not understanding the point of this lesson. It feels extremely overcomplicated and is taking away my understanding of these questions more than it adds.
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.
371 comments
for question 2 - can someone explain how the sufficient and necessary conditions of the embedded condition were id'ed. I got that one wrong.
for question 1, why did we take the contrapositive of (Relocate to this part ---> /Prosper)??
for question 1. why is none not a group 4 indicator?
Trying to make sense of this:
When they talk about the joint sufficient rule (or applying an embedded conditional), why are we focused on whether or not its within the rule instead of just using a conjunction on the sufficient condition. Take example 4:
It basically says this but isn't the lawgic just
50+ Animals AND 10+ Years -> Supported by MF
/Supported by MF -> /50+ Animals OR /10+ Years?
Is this an accurate interpretation of the last one?
If knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, and they do not actually believe that it does not exist, then such knowledge is established.
Offense and /Belief it doesn't exist -> Established
Can I get some feedback? How I answered question 3 was:
O.Companies -> Pop. O
/Pop. O -> /O.Companies
/Funding and /Pop. O -> /O.Companies
Translated into english: If there is no funding from the National Endowment and it is not a popular opera, then the opera companies will not produce it.
Is this correct or am I just completely off track?
Why is it that in the original rule and exception lesson video, you point out that the rule does NOT apply if you are inside the exception, but now you're saying that we don't necessarily know if it applies or not if you are inside the exception?
Video explanations help, but this is very tricky
I struggle with understanding of when to know to chain if you don't see a conditional indicator. Question 3, for example. What is supposed to trigger the mind to understand "oh! if there an opera company, then they must produce the most popular operas."?
Because when I first encountered this, I viewed it as one big condition, not embedded. I watched the "Conditionals without Indicators" video and took notes, but am still struggling a wee bit.
Came back to this after finishing the entire cc, and still took me an hour to somewhat understand what's being said. If you're learning these for the first time, go easy on yourself.
#1
Can you also write /DP and R -> /P
as /DP and P -> /R ?
For #5:
It may not be the most clear way of expressing this, but would this be technically correct:
rule: knowledge is element and person is aware-> established
exception: believes it does not exist?
i.e. instead of kicking the "knowledge is element" part to the domain, can it be part of a compound sufficient condition?
Looking at it from the subject, predicate view helps so much
For question 1: I am confused why we are not treating "that relocated to this part of the forest" as a modifier. I don't understand why we are including it in the conditional. My first instinct was to read it as /(drive out poachers) -> /(Pandas Prosper)
5/5
5/5 — Something that helped me with these: I scan for words like “unless” or “if” first and read that part of the sentence before the rest. That helps me figure out what the sufficient condition (or exception) is before I build the rule. It makes the structure a lot less overwhelming.
When does the curriculum start tying things together? I've been working through the lessons consistently but actually applying these ideas to practice questions hasn't made them easier at all.
Can someone explain how, in Q5, the referential refers to the "fact"?
I'm literally lost. I tried completing these independently but had to watch the video to at least grasp what I am doing. I understand all the lessons before but this one is something else.
is there a way to translate questions like question 5 into understandable english (and then apply rules) cuz it's giving me a headache
on question 2, if the sale does not endanger, wouldnt that keep the restrictions away still?
the last question had me going ????????? for a good 5 mins
My biggest confusion was with question one.
Rule : None of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper.
Exception: Unless we drive out the poachers"
Normally, I would interpret this to meaning that driving out the poachers would mean that the pandas will prosper. But, somehow, this assumption is wrong. I am confused why this is wrong, and would appreciate any clarity on this would be appreciated
Something is missing in my foundational understanding here. I’ve gotten these questions wrong, and I’m not sure if it’s because I’m struggling to translate into “lawgic” once conjunctions were introduced—or when the conjunctions are negated.
Maybe I need to memorize the conditional indicators more thoroughly. I know the sufficient condition goes on the left side of the arrow and the necessary condition goes on the right, but when these practice questions come up, I keep second-guessing myself and end up flipping them. Am I overcomplicating this, or am I just misreading the statements?
I wasn’t having trouble translating into logic before these extra elements got added into the equation (no pun intended) lol.
I'm really not understanding the point of this lesson. It feels extremely overcomplicated and is taking away my understanding of these questions more than it adds.