If you are trying to work on improving your time, these lessons seem like they will be helpful. I can imagine switching between rulesets based on the grammatical structure of the stimulus can save you time on thinking and diagramming.
When taking the contrapositive of a question with an exception, is the exception excluded from the flip and negate? In the video for question #2 the "/endanger" doesn't get negated in the original or in the contrapositive version.
@Summer Im so happy im not the only one. feels like im starting to tune out and everything that ive learned is beginning to collapse because when i see a simple prompt i overanalyze the crap out of it and freeze. especially since these prompts want me to dissect them in a particular way.
For question #1, would it be improper to just write it as "pandas proper --> drive out poachers?" Like in order for them to prosper, driving out the poachers is the necessary thing that needs to happen? I'm having a bit of trouble seeing when something needs to be separated into two things instead of left as one larger sentence...Like do we need to add another bit that specifies the pandas that were relocated here, or is what I'm doing some version of "kicking it up to the domain" by assuming that the pandas I wrote my condition about are the ones that relocated to this part of the forest? I got the same conditional here as the Rule/Except framework... #help
i dont know if this is helpful, but the way i read this that inclined me to separate into two things: "none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper" is a conditional statement in itself. i think i remember the loophole having a page where she translated a conditional with "none," i will try to find. in my head, i read this as: "if im a relocated panda -> i will not prosper."
i have that embedded conditional, and then i deal with the "unless" clause of this sentence.
i think if you want to keep it in just 1 SA side and 1 NA side, you would map it as: "-poach driven out-> (none of relocated pandas prosper)" or inverse "(some relocated pandas prosper)-> poachers driven out." in which i thought some ("not none") is the negation of none.
Aware exists + believe it does exists —> established
Th analysis said “doesn’t believe it doesn’t exist” wouldn’t the two negations cancel out? Or is not believing something doesn’t exist not the same as believing it does? It’s probably not the same, huh 🥹
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?
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
413 comments
for question one could you also say /poachers -->relocated pandas prosper?
If you are trying to work on improving your time, these lessons seem like they will be helpful. I can imagine switching between rulesets based on the grammatical structure of the stimulus can save you time on thinking and diagramming.
Can Q5 be: Exception: believes it doesn't exist.
person aware of high probability and knowledge of the existence --> fact is an element of offense?
up until now i've treated embeddedd conditionals as one entity
so , A --> C in place of A --> (B --> C). It's worked for me.
Why is it important to break it down even more?
i'm just gonna return to this later...
Can Q4. be
50a + 10yrCO -> Support MF ?
When taking the contrapositive of a question with an exception, is the exception excluded from the flip and negate? In the video for question #2 the "/endanger" doesn't get negated in the original or in the contrapositive version.
im so lost on this, this feels so complicated. any advice/how do i get unlost?
@Summer I encourage you to skip and come back much later only if you need to. Don’t worry too much about this lesson.
@Kevin_Lin thank you!
@Summer Im so happy im not the only one. feels like im starting to tune out and everything that ive learned is beginning to collapse because when i see a simple prompt i overanalyze the crap out of it and freeze. especially since these prompts want me to dissect them in a particular way.
for #4, why isn't the fact that they have 10 years of sheltering not kicked up to the domain?
For question 1, is there a reason being a relocated panda can't be considered part of the domain?
Q. 4 can the domain be PAC with 50+ animals
Then,
rule: pet adoption center with at least ten years of continuous operations will be supported by MF
omg got #4 correct in under a few seconds. Light work. (I got the rest wrong)
For question number 2,
If I kick up 'sale of merchandise'
could the below conditional suffice:
/endanger --> /restrictions
@CaylaO I had something similar to this, however I think I realized I was breaking it down too far and making it unclear to read
For question #1, would it be improper to just write it as "pandas proper --> drive out poachers?" Like in order for them to prosper, driving out the poachers is the necessary thing that needs to happen? I'm having a bit of trouble seeing when something needs to be separated into two things instead of left as one larger sentence...Like do we need to add another bit that specifies the pandas that were relocated here, or is what I'm doing some version of "kicking it up to the domain" by assuming that the pandas I wrote my condition about are the ones that relocated to this part of the forest? I got the same conditional here as the Rule/Except framework... #help
@businessgoose businessgoose we meet again!!!
i dont know if this is helpful, but the way i read this that inclined me to separate into two things: "none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper" is a conditional statement in itself. i think i remember the loophole having a page where she translated a conditional with "none," i will try to find. in my head, i read this as: "if im a relocated panda -> i will not prosper."
i have that embedded conditional, and then i deal with the "unless" clause of this sentence.
i think if you want to keep it in just 1 SA side and 1 NA side, you would map it as: "-poach driven out-> (none of relocated pandas prosper)" or inverse "(some relocated pandas prosper)-> poachers driven out." in which i thought some ("not none") is the negation of none.
@MobOtter thank you dear friend!
Q4: Doesn't 'more than 50' mean 51+?
The answer states Shelter50+
Just a technicality I guess..
So, for Q5 I got
Aware exists + believe it does exists —> established
Th analysis said “doesn’t believe it doesn’t exist” wouldn’t the two negations cancel out? Or is not believing something doesn’t exist not the same as believing it does? It’s probably not the same, huh 🥹
The explanations were not satisfactory in this lesson, there was way too much theoritical explanation and little practical lawgic.
Can someone let me know if this is correct for q5:
WHEN knowledge of fact is an offense, such KoF is established IF a person is aware, UNLESS the person doesn't believe
Rule: KoF is established as an offense if a person is aware
R: Aware > KoF Est.
Exc: person doesn't believe
E: /believe
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?