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.
Does the order of embedded conditionals ever matter on the LSAT? For Q4, it seems the two sufficient conditions (10+ and 50+) were on equal footing and thus interchangeable, as the answer in the text vs. video switched their orders.
However, I can see a statement where the order might matter:
A person who drinks coffee will feel festive if the coffee they drink is a pumpkin spice latte.
In this statement, one sufficient condition (drinks pumpkin spice latte) is contingent on the other (drinks coffee), as one must be a coffee-drinker (superset) to drink a pumpkin spice latte (subset.) In this situation, should this be expressed as:
1) drinks-coffee -> (drinks-PSL -> festive), since the rule "drinks-PSL -> festive" is within the domain "drinks-coffee"?
OR
2) drinks-PSL -> (drinks-coffee -> festive), since the conditional should go from subset -> superset?
OR does it simply not matter, since both conditions must be met for the conclusion (festive) to be true?
TL;DR: If it matters, where does it make sense to place the logically preceding condition--on the inside or outside of the parenthesis?
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.
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.
1
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.
347 comments
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.
Does the order of embedded conditionals ever matter on the LSAT? For Q4, it seems the two sufficient conditions (10+ and 50+) were on equal footing and thus interchangeable, as the answer in the text vs. video switched their orders.
However, I can see a statement where the order might matter:
A person who drinks coffee will feel festive if the coffee they drink is a pumpkin spice latte.
In this statement, one sufficient condition (drinks pumpkin spice latte) is contingent on the other (drinks coffee), as one must be a coffee-drinker (superset) to drink a pumpkin spice latte (subset.) In this situation, should this be expressed as:
1) drinks-coffee -> (drinks-PSL -> festive), since the rule "drinks-PSL -> festive" is within the domain "drinks-coffee"?
OR
2) drinks-PSL -> (drinks-coffee -> festive), since the conditional should go from subset -> superset?
OR does it simply not matter, since both conditions must be met for the conclusion (festive) to be true?
TL;DR: If it matters, where does it make sense to place the logically preceding condition--on the inside or outside of the parenthesis?
guys ugh this was lowkey hard, i had some part correct and some wrong
I was confused when doing the questions but watching the video helped explain most of it, I need to practice more on these
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.