how come #5 we cant conclude Vale is also an economy reliant on trade when the stimulus has said the kingdoms in westeros have economies that rely on trade. it literally falls under that statement?
Am I the only one who didn't do the Lawgic but just wrote down the MBT statements that came from the conditions in the statements? Lol. I just found it easier tbh. Means my brain is working, at least I think.
For Q3, I noticed that the bonded pair clause implies that they are not a bonded pair with each other. Couldn't one or both of Mittens and Nittens be part of a bonded pair, just not with each other? Not that it would change the answer much.
After watching the explanation video it makes total sense and I found myself finishing his sentences. For some reason, going through the questions by myself on this skill builder was confusing for me.
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...
/bonded pair --> (other 4+--> /available for adoption)
or
/bonded pair and other 4+--> /available for adoption
since Mittens and Nittens are NOT a bonded pair, thus fitting inside the exception above and "triggering" the sufficient condition; wouldn't the rule not apply for them?
I understand that Mittens and Mittens are not a bonded pair and they are "outside" the exception in the stimulus, "unless... part of a bonded pair of cats", but when translating it with the group 3 rule (negating and making it sufficient), then they fit the exception, no?
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....
@TyWatts for me what got me was reaching the assumption that The Knights of Vale being renowned for the valor must mean a contraposition of the original chain. Which isn't a reasonable assumption.
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.
@FultonHoover In those statements, the sufficient condition is "/blocked" or "/special pass." So failing the sufficient condition would mean "blocked" or "special pass." The sufficient condition can start off in the negative; in that case, failing it would mean we don't trigger that negative.
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?
@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.
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!!
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.
243 comments
#feedback
I think it would be helpful to see how these problems are solved using each of the 3 frameworks we learned about for Rules and Exceptions.
For Question 2, is it correct to say you cannot kick "Newly Arrived Cat" to the domain as you could in Question 1?
how come #5 we cant conclude Vale is also an economy reliant on trade when the stimulus has said the kingdoms in westeros have economies that rely on trade. it literally falls under that statement?
@LinaHuang I believe it's because there are other kingdoms who can support peace securing foreign policies without being reliant on trade.
Am I the only one who didn't do the Lawgic but just wrote down the MBT statements that came from the conditions in the statements? Lol. I just found it easier tbh. Means my brain is working, at least I think.
For Q3, I noticed that the bonded pair clause implies that they are not a bonded pair with each other. Couldn't one or both of Mittens and Nittens be part of a bonded pair, just not with each other? Not that it would change the answer much.
After watching the explanation video it makes total sense and I found myself finishing his sentences. For some reason, going through the questions by myself on this skill builder was confusing for me.
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...
For Question #3, I translated it like this:
/bonded pair --> (other 4+--> /available for adoption)
or
/bonded pair and other 4+--> /available for adoption
since Mittens and Nittens are NOT a bonded pair, thus fitting inside the exception above and "triggering" the sufficient condition; wouldn't the rule not apply for them?
I understand that Mittens and Mittens are not a bonded pair and they are "outside" the exception in the stimulus, "unless... part of a bonded pair of cats", but when translating it with the group 3 rule (negating and making it sufficient), then they fit the exception, no?
Can someone explain this please?
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....
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!
@DouglasNeumeyer It helped me as well until I got to question 4. I forgot Not would negate Unless.
@TyWatts for me what got me was reaching the assumption that The Knights of Vale being renowned for the valor must mean a contraposition of the original chain. Which isn't a reasonable assumption.
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?
@FultonHoover In those statements, the sufficient condition is "/blocked" or "/special pass." So failing the sufficient condition would mean "blocked" or "special pass." The sufficient condition can start off in the negative; in that case, failing it would mean we don't trigger that negative.
A --> B
If not A....we don't know anything.
/F --> K
If F is true... we don't know anything.
@Kevin_Lin thanks for explaining! I get it now
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?
@LexiSmith04 yea.. i included newly arrived in both questions and don't get why we need to differentiate cus it seems to work just fine?
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.
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
@NicoleSpradlin I just need more practice
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.