I personally find that these framework over complicate way too much. I think it's way easier to simply identify what the rule and what the exception is and go about translating it like u would into lawgic.
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.
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.
These lessons seem poorly constructed and all the comments indicate that everyone feels they are hard to understand or unnecessarily complicated. For example on #9 doesn't it make sense to point out
If corporations would reap benefits then consumers should presume deception
reap --> presume deception
/presume deception --> /reap
Why is this not enumerated in the answer? Is making a conditional out of the exception not helpful? It makes it pretty clear that if the exception is met (corporations would reap benefits) then consumers should presume deception
The answer notes that fulfilling the exemption only means that the rule is silent—even if we know that manufacturers would reap large benefits, we do not know if we should presume vagueness as deception. Concluding that corporations standing to reap large benefits should have their vagueness presumed to be deception would be flipping the sufficient and necessary conditions.
In other words, it is necessary that a company stand to reap large benefits in order for a consumer to presume their vagueness as deception, but it is not sufficient. because there here could be other necessary conditions that need to be fulfilled for customers to presume vagueness as deception. For example, a company may have to have over 100 employees.
#feedback It would be helpful if lawgic translations were provided consistently throughout these sets still-- especially as the statements become longer, more complex, and more similar to what we'll see on the test!
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.
Like for question one the sentence is so straight forward, I don't understand the purpose of creating an embedded conditional. Either we remove the poachers or the relocated pandas will not prosper. What is the purpose of separating it into three parts?
@dtt23546 I encourage you to move on -- don't worry about this lesson right now. Not everyone will benefit from it. Once you encounter more difficult questions in LR, you might find the concepts discussed here useful.
I think it really helps to fully understand how formal logic works. This allows you to let your guard down a little bit when reading/parsing the text for potential conditionals. Once you find one(conditional) you know ok I see this conditional, is there anything more in this text that effects this conditional? If so that is usually where the embedding starts. So you take that first conditional and almost look at it as one conditional as a whole.
Here's an example formally.
A->B (first conditional) then you notice, ok there is another conditional that effects this whole condition. In this case call the effecting conditional Z. In your head you can look at that as two separate conditionals and compartmentalize each one.
Formally
(A->B) = C, Z->C == Z->(A->B).
What this allows me to do at least is to focus on figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions in each argument then I can plug in the coefficients where needed. Idk if that makes sense, but I have been grasping this concept pretty easily and I think this is the main reason. Hope this helps.
Are the Rule + Exception and Embedded Conditional frameworks aimed at helping us better understanding questions in the LR section or is this more so tailored for the new August version of the exam?? I've never seen these methods before so wanted some insight.
I don't understand why we're complicating question 1. It seems like a straightforward group 3 translation is most clear. Just because the pandas have a modifier telling me the specific group of pandas I'm talking about are the ones that have been relocated to this part of the forest doesn't change that ultimately the necessary condition is pandas [not] prosper.
Idk, I just don't think it's helpful for me to get caught up in modifiers which ultimately obscure the form of the sentence.
I have a question about question 1: My answer was "/drive out poachers → /relocated pandas prosper" because I read "that relocated to this part of the forest" as modifying "pandas," not as an embedded conditional. How can I differentiate between the two when the sentence uses "that?" Why can't we use the "Group 3 or 4" translation rule? Also, I think my answer is still saying the same thing as the given answer or am I just delusional? I'm still trying to get a hang of embedded conditionals, so any help is much appreciated :)
I initially put it as "if we don't drive out poachers and don't relocate the pandas," but re-reading it, it sounds like the pandas were already relocated and ("none of the pandas that relocated," the "that" implying to me that first the pandas were relocated and then the poachers showed up).
The exercise does seem to be complicating this whole thing, because my initial thought was just to use translation rules, too.
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)
417 comments
What in the hell is going on right now
I personally find that these framework over complicate way too much. I think it's way easier to simply identify what the rule and what the exception is and go about translating it like u would into lawgic.
agree
i completely agree, they need to label their sections a bit better
glad it isn't just me lol
agreed, I just used rule and exception and plan to do that in questions that apply during the real thing. Why overcomplicate a good thing imo
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.
@Aroldan15 this saved me from spiraling, thank you
Im cooked
The beast speaks in tangled sentences. If Satan could speak, it would speak in the language of the LSAT.
Best comment lol
I want to cry
I'm screwed
I was doing so well until these 3 rules…
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.
@Elecoo Same here ✋ I get it bit better but the last two got me
These lessons seem poorly constructed and all the comments indicate that everyone feels they are hard to understand or unnecessarily complicated. For example on #9 doesn't it make sense to point out
If corporations would reap benefits then consumers should presume deception
reap --> presume deception
/presume deception --> /reap
Why is this not enumerated in the answer? Is making a conditional out of the exception not helpful? It makes it pretty clear that if the exception is met (corporations would reap benefits) then consumers should presume deception
The answer notes that fulfilling the exemption only means that the rule is silent—even if we know that manufacturers would reap large benefits, we do not know if we should presume vagueness as deception. Concluding that corporations standing to reap large benefits should have their vagueness presumed to be deception would be flipping the sufficient and necessary conditions.
In other words, it is necessary that a company stand to reap large benefits in order for a consumer to presume their vagueness as deception, but it is not sufficient. because there here could be other necessary conditions that need to be fulfilled for customers to presume vagueness as deception. For example, a company may have to have over 100 employees.
Yes, this is correct. Your original comment was fallacious and is not equivalent to the relationship here.
presuming deception --> Company stands to reap
/stand to reap --> /presume deception.
Does this more properly apply?
yeah no
@ArielleSambolin I love when I see my people in the comments lol
This is killing me
Same
🎶 He says, "Bill, I believe this is killing me" 🎶
🎶 As the smile ran away from his face 🎶
#feedback It would be helpful if lawgic translations were provided consistently throughout these sets still-- especially as the statements become longer, more complex, and more similar to what we'll see on the test!
having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept
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.
this seems completely useless.... what am I missing?
Like for question one the sentence is so straight forward, I don't understand the purpose of creating an embedded conditional. Either we remove the poachers or the relocated pandas will not prosper. What is the purpose of separating it into three parts?
@dtt23546 I encourage you to move on -- don't worry about this lesson right now. Not everyone will benefit from it. Once you encounter more difficult questions in LR, you might find the concepts discussed here useful.
I agree. I feel like most of this section is common sense and intuitive, and only causes more stress and confusion with all the labels.
it's not useless at all, you'll figure this out when trying hard psar/mbt/mbf/sa/na questions.
honestly embedded conditionals is just not clicking at all for me. can someone plz break it down for me differently.
I think it really helps to fully understand how formal logic works. This allows you to let your guard down a little bit when reading/parsing the text for potential conditionals. Once you find one(conditional) you know ok I see this conditional, is there anything more in this text that effects this conditional? If so that is usually where the embedding starts. So you take that first conditional and almost look at it as one conditional as a whole.
Here's an example formally.
A->B (first conditional) then you notice, ok there is another conditional that effects this whole condition. In this case call the effecting conditional Z. In your head you can look at that as two separate conditionals and compartmentalize each one.
Formally
(A->B) = C, Z->C == Z->(A->B).
What this allows me to do at least is to focus on figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions in each argument then I can plug in the coefficients where needed. Idk if that makes sense, but I have been grasping this concept pretty easily and I think this is the main reason. Hope this helps.
Are the Rule + Exception and Embedded Conditional frameworks aimed at helping us better understanding questions in the LR section or is this more so tailored for the new August version of the exam?? I've never seen these methods before so wanted some insight.
#help
#feedback ^^
#feedback
#feedback
I don't understand why we're complicating question 1. It seems like a straightforward group 3 translation is most clear. Just because the pandas have a modifier telling me the specific group of pandas I'm talking about are the ones that have been relocated to this part of the forest doesn't change that ultimately the necessary condition is pandas [not] prosper.
Idk, I just don't think it's helpful for me to get caught up in modifiers which ultimately obscure the form of the sentence.
I have a question about question 1: My answer was "/drive out poachers → /relocated pandas prosper" because I read "that relocated to this part of the forest" as modifying "pandas," not as an embedded conditional. How can I differentiate between the two when the sentence uses "that?" Why can't we use the "Group 3 or 4" translation rule? Also, I think my answer is still saying the same thing as the given answer or am I just delusional? I'm still trying to get a hang of embedded conditionals, so any help is much appreciated :)
#help (Added by Admin)
I was thinking that, too.
I initially put it as "if we don't drive out poachers and don't relocate the pandas," but re-reading it, it sounds like the pandas were already relocated and ("none of the pandas that relocated," the "that" implying to me that first the pandas were relocated and then the poachers showed up).
The exercise does seem to be complicating this whole thing, because my initial thought was just to use translation rules, too.
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)
All of this was super confusing and jamming me up doing these “techniques”
Why can't for #1 I just write:
~Drive out Poachers -> ~Pandas Prosper
Pandas Prosper -> Drive out Poachers
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?