Q1: “Unless we drive out the poachers, none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper.”
/drive out poachers → (relocated panda → /prosper)
/drive out poachers and relocate panda → /prosper
We’ll start by treating the clause following “unless” as the exception. The other clause will be the rule. Rule: “none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper.” Exception: “we drove out the poachers” Lawgic Rule: (relocated panda → /prosper) Lawgic Exception: (drive out poachers)
Q2: “No restrictions should be placed on the sale of merchandise unless the scale of that merchandise could endanger innocent people.”
Rule: No restrictions should be placed on the scale of merchandise.
Exception: Sale of that merchandise could endanger innocent people. Lawgic Rule: (sale-merch → /restrict) Lawgic Exception: (merch -could endanger-inno)
Q3: “Opera companies have to produce the most popular operas, unless they receive funding from the National Endowment for the Arts.”
Rule: Opera companies have to produce the most popular opera.
Exception: They receive funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. Lawgic Rule: Opera -company → prod-most-pop-operas
Q4: “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.”
Domain: Pet adoption Center
Rule as embedded conditional: shelter 50+ → (10years →supp-MF)
Rule with sufficient conjuncts: shelter 50+ and 10 years → supp MF
Lawgic Rule: 10 YRS → Supp MF
Lawgic Exception: /Shelter 50+
Q5: “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.”
Domain: Knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense.
Rule: If a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, then such knowledge is established.
Exception: He actually believed that it did not exist.
Why can't you dodge the idea of embedded conditionals entirely on the first question. 'unless' is group 3. Our elements are DP (drive out poachers) and /RPWP (none of the relocated pandas will prosper). So using the translation rule, you get either /DP -> /RPWP or RPWP -> DP. Why do you need to confuse yourself further by introducing an embedded conditional when you don't need one?
Does it make sense to focus or use one of the three frameworks that makes the most sense intuitively to you or could there be instances where say thinking about the exception as a conditional statement instead of kicking it up is better?
With all the other forms in this same order, can someone help me understand why K (knowledge as an element) is its own condition and why it’s being placed before Awareness? They’re both sufficient but the order of the passage makes it seem like K depends on A
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.
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.
390 comments
the way Q2 was being explained in the video was so confusing!!!! like omggggggggggggggg
why is #2 sale-merch → /restrict and not "/restrict→sale-merch" ?
I'm screwed
4 seems to be If A and B and C then D. 5 seems to be If A and B and C and not D then E. There is no way to reduce the complexity.
How do avoid overlooking the second condition usually the SC when (SC and NC embedded condition) embedded conditional?
I'll be revisiting embedded conditional lesson.
/drive-out-poachers → (relocated-panda → /prosper)
Q1: “Unless we drive out the poachers, none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper.”
/drive out poachers → (relocated panda → /prosper)
/drive out poachers and relocate panda → /prosper
We’ll start by treating the clause following “unless” as the exception. The other clause will be the rule. Rule: “none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper.” Exception: “we drove out the poachers” Lawgic Rule: (relocated panda → /prosper) Lawgic Exception: (drive out poachers)
Q2: “No restrictions should be placed on the sale of merchandise unless the scale of that merchandise could endanger innocent people.”
Rule: No restrictions should be placed on the scale of merchandise.
Exception: Sale of that merchandise could endanger innocent people. Lawgic Rule: (sale-merch → /restrict) Lawgic Exception: (merch -could endanger-inno)
Q3: “Opera companies have to produce the most popular operas, unless they receive funding from the National Endowment for the Arts.”
Rule: Opera companies have to produce the most popular opera.
Exception: They receive funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. Lawgic Rule: Opera -company → prod-most-pop-operas
Lawgic Exception: fund-NEA
Domain: Opera-company /fund-NEA → prod-most-pop-operas.
Q4: “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.”
Domain: Pet adoption Center
Rule as embedded conditional: shelter 50+ → (10years →supp-MF)
Rule with sufficient conjuncts: shelter 50+ and 10 years → supp MF
Lawgic Rule: 10 YRS → Supp MF
Lawgic Exception: /Shelter 50+
Q5: “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.”
Domain: Knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense.
Rule: If a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, then such knowledge is established.
Exception: He actually believed that it did not exist.
having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept
Why can't you dodge the idea of embedded conditionals entirely on the first question. 'unless' is group 3. Our elements are DP (drive out poachers) and /RPWP (none of the relocated pandas will prosper). So using the translation rule, you get either /DP -> /RPWP or RPWP -> DP. Why do you need to confuse yourself further by introducing an embedded conditional when you don't need one?
For Q5, can you make the whole thing a conjunction?
First, it becomes:
knowledge is element of a fact AND /(doesn't believe it exists) -> aware if existence -> established.
Then you can technically add another conjunction:
knowledge is element of a fact AND /(doesn't believe it exists) AND aware of its existence - > established
Maybe this is too much work, but for me it kinda makes it simpler that this is just 1 big conjunction.
Q4 I read the rule as if you have 10 + years of experience then you are supported and the exception if you have more than 50 animals.
Is there an issue with that?
Does it make sense to focus or use one of the three frameworks that makes the most sense intuitively to you or could there be instances where say thinking about the exception as a conditional statement instead of kicking it up is better?
i don't know if this is working out for me. i'm reaching the same conclusion as the answers but i feel like theyre so overcomplicated?
these messed me tf up
I went:
/Be -> (A -> K -> Established)
With all the other forms in this same order, can someone help me understand why K (knowledge as an element) is its own condition and why it’s being placed before Awareness? They’re both sufficient but the order of the passage makes it seem like K depends on A
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 ?