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
Q4 threw me off because I just kept playing the scene in my head of Little Finger bringing the Knights of the Vale to Winterfell. I'm like 'surely the Vale benefits from War because War brings chaos and chaos is a ladder!'
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.
This is frustrating. I get it wrong but in the video it shows I did it correct with his reasoning. Like #1 for example the answer in the video and the question are different views.
for question 4, is this part of the statement "The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade" a conditional? I thought it was since "rely" can indicate necessity, right? #help
Q5 hit like a truck. Would love someone to explain that the assumption that Vale's econ doesn't predominately rely on trade is not valid as though they were explaining it to a 2 yr old.
"...in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace. A kingdom will not support peaceable foreign policies unless it stands to benefit from the absence of war. The Vale supports peace securing foreign policies."
SO- a kingdom will NOT support peaceful foreign policy UNLESS it stands to benefit from no war.. those that benefit from no war- rely on trade in their economies, so if vale supports this peace in policy, it would mean (to me at least) that they support this bc they BENEFIT from it, if they are not benefitting from it, why would they support it? In order to benefit from it, it must positively impact their econ.. right?? is it because it can not be confirmed 100% that this is the case, i.e. could vale just not have a peaceful foreign policy because they feel its right morally and gain no benefit from it in their economy based on this stim? agh, making my head hurt. the rest made sense to me except 5.
Question 5: If this is the chain: t > p > b and Vale is p... I understand that we cannot conclude that p > t, but is it fair to ASSUME if Vale is p, then it is /p and therefore Vale is /t?
for the first question, because there is no mention of the other cats and their relative arrival periods, then we cant make any conclusions about mittens, is this a proper inference?
Somehow the cats confused me more than the kingdoms... this will take longer than I originally thought.
5
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.
209 comments
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
Q4 threw me off because I just kept playing the scene in my head of Little Finger bringing the Knights of the Vale to Winterfell. I'm like 'surely the Vale benefits from War because War brings chaos and chaos is a ladder!'
5/5 Mission failed successfully
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.
This is frustrating. I get it wrong but in the video it shows I did it correct with his reasoning. Like #1 for example the answer in the video and the question are different views.
I'm having a hard time knowing when to kick it up into the domain, and when to keep the statements as embedded conditionals. Please help me.
hoo boy
what is the shortcut to make superscripts and subscripts (exponent)
for question 4, is this part of the statement "The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade" a conditional? I thought it was since "rely" can indicate necessity, right? #help
Q5 hit like a truck. Would love someone to explain that the assumption that Vale's econ doesn't predominately rely on trade is not valid as though they were explaining it to a 2 yr old.
"...in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace. A kingdom will not support peaceable foreign policies unless it stands to benefit from the absence of war. The Vale supports peace securing foreign policies."
SO- a kingdom will NOT support peaceful foreign policy UNLESS it stands to benefit from no war.. those that benefit from no war- rely on trade in their economies, so if vale supports this peace in policy, it would mean (to me at least) that they support this bc they BENEFIT from it, if they are not benefitting from it, why would they support it? In order to benefit from it, it must positively impact their econ.. right?? is it because it can not be confirmed 100% that this is the case, i.e. could vale just not have a peaceful foreign policy because they feel its right morally and gain no benefit from it in their economy based on this stim? agh, making my head hurt. the rest made sense to me except 5.
The last sentence on question 5 threw me off. It doesn't mean the same as the middle condition.
Question 5: If this is the chain: t > p > b and Vale is p... I understand that we cannot conclude that p > t, but is it fair to ASSUME if Vale is p, then it is /p and therefore Vale is /t?
4/5
for q3: would yall consider this to be correct?
new and 4+weeks </not available (/MN)
any new cats that are waiting for longer than 4 weeks will not be adopted, unless the cats are bonded
()= Mittness and Nittens
/= not bonded.
im confused on why q2 included new, and q3 didnt. To me this makes sense
for the first question, because there is no mention of the other cats and their relative arrival periods, then we cant make any conclusions about mittens, is this a proper inference?
Somehow the cats confused me more than the kingdoms... this will take longer than I originally thought.