these techniques are helpful. it's interesting to see where we take different paths--often when I think a kick it up to the domain framework is fitting, you don't, and vice versa. but it all gets to the same answer, so the variability is fine!
I got tripped up on the last one, as it started with "when" and I mindlessly deemed this a Group 1 indicator and said that knowledge was the sufficient condition. I saw the "if" later and realized how it actually works.
Why are we being told to recognize the subject of our sentence as a condition. In MOST of these questions, the subject is being used as a condition (Q1, Q2, etc.). It just dosen't make sense when we've never done it previously.
For these questions, is it safe to say there's more than one answer? I would argue i got everything right, but I just chose different elements when i negated sufficient, or kicked up into the domain.
As someone who is coming back to review this a month and a half later... this is much easier to grasp. Don't stress too much if you don't understand it, keep going with the CC and after a month of drilling questions you can come back to this.
~believes it doesn't exist --> (person is aware of a high probability of existence --> knowledge of existence of particular fact is element of an offense)
believes it exist and person is aware of a high probability of existence --> knowledge of existence of particular fact is element of an offense
I'm struggling to grasp this so I have a feeling I'm overthinking but how do you know if you're inside or outside of the rule? For a question to just say "unless x happens..." doesn't tell me. Did x happen or did it not?
Ok i understand the majority of this as these are techniques dealing with rules and their exceptions in order to bring us to a valid inference or conclusion, however what is this lesson's application to LSAT questions? Like, will these complicated conditionals be in the answers or the stimulus most of the time?
"A pet adoption center with at least ten years of continuous operations will be supported by the Mittens Foundation if it shelters more than fifty animals."
to
"A pet adoption center with at least ten years of continuous operations will be supported by the Mittens Foundation unless it shelters more than fifty animals."
would the answer be different (or I guess opposite)?
The reason why I'm asking is I don't know if I'm understanding after reading the explanation because I have the explanation, or if I am truly understanding it...
sorry Im wondering why we cant group pandas that relocated to this forest into one term (PRTPF) then cary on with group three. would it ever rly skrew us up badley to do such. Also do i only see relpies to this if i check back in?
I really enjoyed that final lesson at the end of question 5, the Xlsat coin, it did help me understand a little bit more, the diagramming and conditional language is not too hard to learn but, I appreciate an analogy lesson such as that. (the xlsat coin) hopefully no one ever makes such a thing.
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!
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.
324 comments
these techniques are helpful. it's interesting to see where we take different paths--often when I think a kick it up to the domain framework is fitting, you don't, and vice versa. but it all gets to the same answer, so the variability is fine!
I got tripped up on the last one, as it started with "when" and I mindlessly deemed this a Group 1 indicator and said that knowledge was the sufficient condition. I saw the "if" later and realized how it actually works.
5/5 somehow lmao
Why are we being told to recognize the subject of our sentence as a condition. In MOST of these questions, the subject is being used as a condition (Q1, Q2, etc.). It just dosen't make sense when we've never done it previously.
That just makes it overly complicated.
For these questions, is it safe to say there's more than one answer? I would argue i got everything right, but I just chose different elements when i negated sufficient, or kicked up into the domain.
#help
For Q3, I would've translated the embedded conditional as:
/NEA --> (OC --> PMPO)
If using the Domain + Rule technique, why is the domain not found by taking the outside sufficient condition (i.e., D: /NEA)?
As someone who is coming back to review this a month and a half later... this is much easier to grasp. Don't stress too much if you don't understand it, keep going with the CC and after a month of drilling questions you can come back to this.
All of this was super confusing and jamming me up doing these “techniques”
so confused on #5. any tips are welcome (please)
On number 5 in the video explanation I got it right but in the question wrong.
I'm also confused because in some questions it'll say if... but won't put it in front of the arrow as the sufficent?
Im so confused.
#help
~believes it doesn't exist --> (person is aware of a high probability of existence --> knowledge of existence of particular fact is element of an offense)
believes it exist and person is aware of a high probability of existence --> knowledge of existence of particular fact is element of an offense
Does this work for #5?
struggling to really grasp this does anyone have tips? or anything to help?
Didn't do a single one with the recommended technique lol. Hope that doesn't signal something
I'm struggling to grasp this so I have a feeling I'm overthinking but how do you know if you're inside or outside of the rule? For a question to just say "unless x happens..." doesn't tell me. Did x happen or did it not?
Ok i understand the majority of this as these are techniques dealing with rules and their exceptions in order to bring us to a valid inference or conclusion, however what is this lesson's application to LSAT questions? Like, will these complicated conditionals be in the answers or the stimulus most of the time?
Why can't for #1 I just write:
~Drive out Poachers -> ~Pandas Prosper
Pandas Prosper -> Drive out Poachers
So I used the JSC framework for #5 (and all of them, it's the only one that really makes sense lol) and I got
/belief it doesn't exist and High Probability that it exists >> knowledge established of fact
can someone tell me if this is accurate, because the answer didn't cover other frameworks
What is the point of this? Is it just a tool to provide clarity? Does it actually get us to an answer? Why am I doing this?
yeah no
I want to cry
Q5 F***ED ME UP lol. Got it right, but dang that threw me off hahaha
For question 4, if you change
"A pet adoption center with at least ten years of continuous operations will be supported by the Mittens Foundation if it shelters more than fifty animals."
to
"A pet adoption center with at least ten years of continuous operations will be supported by the Mittens Foundation unless it shelters more than fifty animals."
would the answer be different (or I guess opposite)?
The reason why I'm asking is I don't know if I'm understanding after reading the explanation because I have the explanation, or if I am truly understanding it...
For Q5, can you just say that believe exists instead of /does not believe it exists
sorry Im wondering why we cant group pandas that relocated to this forest into one term (PRTPF) then cary on with group three. would it ever rly skrew us up badley to do such. Also do i only see relpies to this if i check back in?
I really enjoyed that final lesson at the end of question 5, the Xlsat coin, it did help me understand a little bit more, the diagramming and conditional language is not too hard to learn but, I appreciate an analogy lesson such as that. (the xlsat coin) hopefully no one ever makes such a thing.