I do not find these methods very intuitive at all. It seems like with every added lesson, the concept becomes more and more confusing and I lose confidence in my own ability to draw valid conclusions.
@clarktoo couldnt agree more. i have no idea what they are saying. The reality is we have never looked at anything like this before. It almost seems like they are making it into some sort of strange formula and its counter-intuitive to how a normal person reads
I am kinda confused. I feel like nothing new was introduced after kicking up. Like we are just working with a bunch of Suf. and Nec in different styles. I am not sure what was added....
#feedback Conditions and Set Logic needs to have videos for EVERY SINGLE LESSON like this entire thing being 95% no videos isn't helpful especially considering how confusing conditions and set logic is.
Thanks for your feedback! We understand how crucial videos are for learning complex topics. Currently, we don't have an ETA for the videos as we're ensuring each feature meets our high quality and user experience standards, which means development times can vary.
We appreciate your patience and please don't hesitate to let us know if you have any further feedback or questions.
I mean we pay a premium for the seemingly best prep course out there. How does a critical segment of the curriculum just not have the most effective learning device for most (videos)? Especially when the first couple of lessons had videos, implying that videos were a standardized part of our lesson plan. I've seen this PR message numerous times in several comments sections, the 7Sage team needs to just get on it instead of saying that you will. Thank you.
sorry but the future lawyer in me is still on Charles side for question 10. Yes I agree that its kinda obvious he would know BUT IF THE CLIENT DENIES KNOWLEDGE THEN IM BACKING HIM AND REPEATING HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE
i only get it after watching the explanation video and then i think i'm fine. but i see an entirely new question with new text and suddenly its gibberish again...
It is extremely disappointing that the culmination lessons of the "Conditional and Set Logic" section were not taught through video. The methods have become intensely convoluted to a point of heavily diminished returns and I have lost the plot entirely.
This is like investing 10 hours into a movie only to have to read the conclusion on a scroller.
SAME, I was doing GREAT up until the lessons stopped having video explanations. Now I feel so lost and am confusing things I shouldn't be. Gonna skip these last lessons and come back to them once they have videos up.
Ok so if I don't know how to do this which lesson should I go back to and review? I've taken notes on every single lesson but for some reason it's still not clicking
All these steps and concepts have left me completely lost. Is this normal? I feel like I decently understand the concepts, however in the skill builders I get everything wrong and it seems like I do not have a clue what is going on.
I find it easier to not exactly follow the lawgic the provide and just go with my intuition. my lawgic is not the same as theirs but i'm still understanding the concepts. if you don't like the way they write it, maybe create your own way that fits better with your understanding as long as you stick to the core concepts.
This was my answer to the last question
domain: kingdom in westeros
trade - supp-policies
/supp-policies - /trade
/beneabwar - /supp-policies
supp-policies - benawar
v - supp-policies - benawar
it looks nothing like what they wrote but the underlying correct concepts are still there and I still drew the same conclusion
If this can help, about 30% of the LSAT is this. Being able to look at arguments and efficiently figure out what it is saying and then looking at the exam and decoding the answers. A friend of mine did the LSAT and said this is how it is built.
Yeah, to echo this a bit, I've been working through this module for quite some time now but I still have no idea how this info is going to be mirrored on the actual LSAT. I hope that this relationship is made clearer sometime in the near future!
It doesn't matter if when you see this stuff appear in real LSAT sections you can get those questions right confidently. There might come a time where you struggle on those questions, though, in which case having diagramming as a tool might be helpful.
This exercise was incredibly helpful! Would love to see more exercises where application of the technique being taught is directly applicable to LSAT-like questions.
I personally found this skill builder to be easier if I just first thought about "what conclusion can i draw intuitively?" instead of trying to first translate everything into Lawgic then draw a conclusion. #feedback
I think thats the goal of all the Lawgic drilling. It's not so much to utilize the written format of test, than it is to understand what the passage is actually saying. When you read a passage, know that there are logic formations at play, formations that will dictate what the outcome (conclusion) will be. once you've identified the conclusion, and the premises that support it, everything else slips into place. Especially when you move on to questions, because you would have already known what to expect.
@EdithM I think the point is that you can look at it either way, and it will work as long as you're correctly using the rules and identifying sufficiency/necessity relationships.
If I'm getting the right answers, but not always using the same (or even all that similar) logic as is elucidated in the explanations, is that a cause for concern? Or is the fact the fact that I'm coming to correct conclusions a sufficient indicator that I'm on the right track?
248 comments
I do not find these methods very intuitive at all. It seems like with every added lesson, the concept becomes more and more confusing and I lose confidence in my own ability to draw valid conclusions.
@clarktoo this is exactly how I am feeling. How are you doing now?
@clarktoo couldnt agree more. i have no idea what they are saying. The reality is we have never looked at anything like this before. It almost seems like they are making it into some sort of strange formula and its counter-intuitive to how a normal person reads
These need videos desperately! Seriously I'm so confused and this is echoed by many other students on here.
Stop scrolling in despair to the comments.
Yes. I'm confused too.
Scroll back up and finish it. You got this.
I hate the LSAT. It always screws you when you infer something but also screws you when you don't.
@lucas.guyton52704 We'll start to see patterns with more practice, I'm sure. (Relating fully with your frustration but trying to keep the faith)
I wonder if there's a way to practice just valid inferences from the stimuli. Like flashcards or something with examples.
This whole section needs videos. Reading all of this is exhausting.
Here is a summary of rules of logical reasonings I made based on this set of lessons on formal logic
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mzHeZeqlfMRuofA8p6mD8DN9mwwL_nJZQroekfDn-Yw/edit?usp=sharing
here is a cheat sheet I made to help me study (till I have it memorized). I hunt it above my desk:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H0VooypfwEdfLurm0T8W1l1E60EdWZCS/view?usp=sharing
Feel free to print, use, and share
u want head?
Hi! If you have anymore consolidated notes like these please let me know! This really helped with my understanding of the concept.
thank you so much!
@dlpaltiel770309 do you still have that second link available?
@gabahahaha if you ever get it can you please send
@dlpaltiel770309 do you have another link? this one doesn't work anymore
I am kinda confused. I feel like nothing new was introduced after kicking up. Like we are just working with a bunch of Suf. and Nec in different styles. I am not sure what was added....
5/5 Mission failed successfully
#feedback Conditions and Set Logic needs to have videos for EVERY SINGLE LESSON like this entire thing being 95% no videos isn't helpful especially considering how confusing conditions and set logic is.
All the admins have been saying this for months LOL
Hey there,
Thanks for your feedback! We understand how crucial videos are for learning complex topics. Currently, we don't have an ETA for the videos as we're ensuring each feature meets our high quality and user experience standards, which means development times can vary.
We appreciate your patience and please don't hesitate to let us know if you have any further feedback or questions.
I mean we pay a premium for the seemingly best prep course out there. How does a critical segment of the curriculum just not have the most effective learning device for most (videos)? Especially when the first couple of lessons had videos, implying that videos were a standardized part of our lesson plan. I've seen this PR message numerous times in several comments sections, the 7Sage team needs to just get on it instead of saying that you will. Thank you.
hoo boy
sorry but the future lawyer in me is still on Charles side for question 10. Yes I agree that its kinda obvious he would know BUT IF THE CLIENT DENIES KNOWLEDGE THEN IM BACKING HIM AND REPEATING HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE
i totally agree with u. #teamcharles
Charles is getting 48 months in federal prison
i only get it after watching the explanation video and then i think i'm fine. but i see an entirely new question with new text and suddenly its gibberish again...
#feedback
It is extremely disappointing that the culmination lessons of the "Conditional and Set Logic" section were not taught through video. The methods have become intensely convoluted to a point of heavily diminished returns and I have lost the plot entirely.
This is like investing 10 hours into a movie only to have to read the conclusion on a scroller.
SAME, I was doing GREAT up until the lessons stopped having video explanations. Now I feel so lost and am confusing things I shouldn't be. Gonna skip these last lessons and come back to them once they have videos up.
Same
Ok so if I don't know how to do this which lesson should I go back to and review? I've taken notes on every single lesson but for some reason it's still not clicking
All these steps and concepts have left me completely lost. Is this normal? I feel like I decently understand the concepts, however in the skill builders I get everything wrong and it seems like I do not have a clue what is going on.
I find it easier to not exactly follow the lawgic the provide and just go with my intuition. my lawgic is not the same as theirs but i'm still understanding the concepts. if you don't like the way they write it, maybe create your own way that fits better with your understanding as long as you stick to the core concepts.
This was my answer to the last question
domain: kingdom in westeros
trade - supp-policies
/supp-policies - /trade
/beneabwar - /supp-policies
supp-policies - benawar
v - supp-policies - benawar
it looks nothing like what they wrote but the underlying correct concepts are still there and I still drew the same conclusion
this helps me so much. i am getting so lost and hard on myself by trying to think the same!
These past lession ive just been speeding through it because it got complex real quick#feedback#help
me too :')
also i wish they were in video form, i feel like i understand the lessons better when they are explained visually through the video#feedback
I did these about 2 months ago when I just started, and now that I am doing the entire curriculum, coming back to them is so helpful
#feedback it would be really helpful to know why/ how these apply on the exam. I am feeling pretty lost.
If this can help, about 30% of the LSAT is this. Being able to look at arguments and efficiently figure out what it is saying and then looking at the exam and decoding the answers. A friend of mine did the LSAT and said this is how it is built.
Yeah, to echo this a bit, I've been working through this module for quite some time now but I still have no idea how this info is going to be mirrored on the actual LSAT. I hope that this relationship is made clearer sometime in the near future!
My thoughts exactly. I need to see it applied
who else fell for the last claim on question 4.
I got all of these wrong on my own, but the video explanations helped out. I'm still cooked
I understand the concept and can describe it out loud and in my head but have trouble diagraming it. Does it matter?
It doesn't matter if when you see this stuff appear in real LSAT sections you can get those questions right confidently. There might come a time where you struggle on those questions, though, in which case having diagramming as a tool might be helpful.
#feedback
This exercise was incredibly helpful! Would love to see more exercises where application of the technique being taught is directly applicable to LSAT-like questions.
agreed, this section helped me apply everything
I personally found this skill builder to be easier if I just first thought about "what conclusion can i draw intuitively?" instead of trying to first translate everything into Lawgic then draw a conclusion. #feedback
I think thats the goal of all the Lawgic drilling. It's not so much to utilize the written format of test, than it is to understand what the passage is actually saying. When you read a passage, know that there are logic formations at play, formations that will dictate what the outcome (conclusion) will be. once you've identified the conclusion, and the premises that support it, everything else slips into place. Especially when you move on to questions, because you would have already known what to expect.
Remember, the goal is clarity.
is there a way to find more practice for these types of questions?
How do I know when unless refers to a conditional format or to the exception? I saw unless and put it as the exception for question 4 & 5.
@EdithM I think the point is that you can look at it either way, and it will work as long as you're correctly using the rules and identifying sufficiency/necessity relationships.
If I'm getting the right answers, but not always using the same (or even all that similar) logic as is elucidated in the explanations, is that a cause for concern? Or is the fact the fact that I'm coming to correct conclusions a sufficient indicator that I'm on the right track?
#help
same here, because for like question 7, i just disregarded the last sentence because it seemed isolated and not connected.