I am kinda confused. I feel like nothing knew 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....
I have a pressing question about this rule (below) when using the unless negation technique:
1. "Sufficient failed yields no information about the necessary."
Here's the issue: when you have a sentence like, "cars are blocked from the bridge unless they have a special pass", using the unless technique yields this:
/blocked --> special pass
OR
/special pass --> blocked
But when applying the above rule (1.), failing the sufficient condition in either of those scenarios does tell us that the necessary cannot occur.
Having a hard time buying that it isn't a flawed assumption to assume that "foreign policies that aim to secure peace" are the same as "peaceable foreign policies".
I feel like I have the right reasonings, but I don't do things the exact what that the video or the answer shows. For instance in question one, he says you can shorten the sufficient conditions and exclude "newly arrived" but he doesn't show how the process for that circumstance. Does anyone relate?
Reading the question fully and chaining the conditionals made this very easy for me. I still need to practice to use De Morgan's Law because it's a gentle reminder that outcome can be and/or.
Overall, I'd say I performed really good on this. I took forever to get to the conclusions, but I got things right for the most part. Whenever I saw I made a mistake in my problem-solving, I paused the video, made corrections, and ultimately ended up with the right answers before I let the video reveal them. Progress .. let's gooooooo!!
if im drawing the same conclusion then does it matter how I diagram it? I just feel like this lesson was redundant and made it more confusing that necessary.
is it fine for the last one to have the domain be kingdoms in westeros whose economies... etc. ? I don't see value in putting the economic statement in my chain
For question 3, would this be a correct application of the Domain-Rule Framework?
Domain: Cats waiting longer than 4 weeks
Rule: Any newly arrived cat will not be available for adoption unless the newly arrived cat is part of a bonded pair of cats
Any (newly arrived cat → /adoption) unless the newly arrived cat is part of a bonded pair of cats
/bonded → (newly arrived cat → /adoption)
/bonded and newly arrived → /adoption
If you are not bonded and you’re a newly arrived cat, then you are not available for adoption
If you are outside the domain, (ie. there are not cats waiting longer than 4 weeks), then the rule is silent on you - we don’t know whether you’ll be available for adoption
I just want to make sure I am doing this right, specifically the second to last sentence. So, would "a kingdom will not support peaceable foreign policies" be the first idea. Then the second idea be UNLESS "it stands to benefit from the absence of war.
Wouldn't the Lawgic then be /benefit from the absence of war --> /not support peace
OR support peace --> benefit from absence of war
I am then confused why they are saying bene-/war because what about the supporting peace part of the sentence I thought that the UNLESS splits the sentence into the two ideas? Is this correct or am I just confusing myself
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.
233 comments
I am kinda confused. I feel like nothing knew 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....
working through problems 1-3 really helped me understand uses for the Rules and Exceptions Framework lessons a bit better so thank you for those!
I think I am finally getting the hang of this, took a while but its clicking now :)
I have a pressing question about this rule (below) when using the unless negation technique:
1. "Sufficient failed yields no information about the necessary."
Here's the issue: when you have a sentence like, "cars are blocked from the bridge unless they have a special pass", using the unless technique yields this:
/blocked --> special pass
OR
/special pass --> blocked
But when applying the above rule (1.), failing the sufficient condition in either of those scenarios does tell us that the necessary cannot occur.
What am I missing?
Having a hard time buying that it isn't a flawed assumption to assume that "foreign policies that aim to secure peace" are the same as "peaceable foreign policies".
I feel like I have the right reasonings, but I don't do things the exact what that the video or the answer shows. For instance in question one, he says you can shorten the sufficient conditions and exclude "newly arrived" but he doesn't show how the process for that circumstance. Does anyone relate?
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.
Reading the question fully and chaining the conditionals made this very easy for me. I still need to practice to use De Morgan's Law because it's a gentle reminder that outcome can be and/or.
the way that i thought the examples were broken because I couldnt tell a difference between Mittens and Nittens istg
How do we know when to look back at the group 3 condition words or use an exception framework rule?
Overall, I'd say I performed really good on this. I took forever to get to the conclusions, but I got things right for the most part. Whenever I saw I made a mistake in my problem-solving, I paused the video, made corrections, and ultimately ended up with the right answers before I let the video reveal them. Progress .. let's gooooooo!!
If I think about #4 with my LSAT brain, it makes sense. I'm still mad about getting it wrong 😭 I have to get over that
it took me a while, but I get it :D
why did they write it like this instead of
vale -> supp-pfp -> vbene-/war?
LETS GO 5/5 BABY!
Kicking as much universal/not contested info to the domain to keep the diagramming simple helps me a lot.
who else fell for the last claim on question 4.
for #4, I don't understand how benefits from war are necessary for supporting foreign policies.
econ-trade → supp-pfp → bene-/war
if im drawing the same conclusion then does it matter how I diagram it? I just feel like this lesson was redundant and made it more confusing that necessary.
is it fine for the last one to have the domain be kingdoms in westeros whose economies... etc. ? I don't see value in putting the economic statement in my chain
#Help
In any given question, how fo we know if we should interpret the "Unless" as an exception or as a group three indicator?
For example in question 4, the "unless" is used as group 3 indicator, but then in question 3 its used as an exception.
For question 3, would this be a correct application of the Domain-Rule Framework?
Domain: Cats waiting longer than 4 weeks
Rule: Any newly arrived cat will not be available for adoption unless the newly arrived cat is part of a bonded pair of cats
Any (newly arrived cat → /adoption) unless the newly arrived cat is part of a bonded pair of cats
/bonded → (newly arrived cat → /adoption)
/bonded and newly arrived → /adoption
If you are not bonded and you’re a newly arrived cat, then you are not available for adoption
If you are outside the domain, (ie. there are not cats waiting longer than 4 weeks), then the rule is silent on you - we don’t know whether you’ll be available for adoption
Is the stimulus in Q3 saying that both Mittens and Nittens are newly arrived or just Mittens?
I just want to make sure I am doing this right, specifically the second to last sentence. So, would "a kingdom will not support peaceable foreign policies" be the first idea. Then the second idea be UNLESS "it stands to benefit from the absence of war.
Wouldn't the Lawgic then be /benefit from the absence of war --> /not support peace
OR support peace --> benefit from absence of war
I am then confused why they are saying bene-/war because what about the supporting peace part of the sentence I thought that the UNLESS splits the sentence into the two ideas? Is this correct or am I just confusing myself