i had to write this one out because i was lost at first. question 2. "Some alphabets are not phonetic." meaning "At least 1 alphabet is not phonetic" so to negate that would be "It is not the case that at least 1 alphabet is not phonetic," so "no alphabet is not phonetic" is the same as "all alphabets are phonetic"
@shay_lsat For it to be true, it means some alphabets are not phonetic. By saying all alphabets are phonetic, you deny the possibility of some not being phonetic.
@shay_lsat Some alphabets are not phonetic is arguing at least one alphabet is not phoenic so alphabet some arrow not-phonetic. If I want to refute the claim of at least one I need to demonstrate that all is the other so I would need to counter with no that is incorrect ALL alphabets are phonetic there is not a single one that is non-phonetic
#help I am lost on this lesson. Why are we doing this drill? I am getting confused between negating and contrapositives. Why do we have to negate some/most statements? Don't we just use our knowledge of some/most to tell whether the LSAT authors have made an error in inferencing?
I am also lost as to why #4 takes some and negates it to all. Doesn't some negate to none? Is it because "some alphabets are not phonetic" negates to "it is not the case that some alphabets are not phonetic," which means "all alphabets are phonetic?"
Hello, has anyone answered your questions about the purpose of this drill? I am also getting confused between negation and contrapositive and when to use which.
I wish they'd bring back videos, too, especially video answers for Skill Builders! We had them for Grammar, but the logic stuff could really use it because it's so new to so many of us, unlike grammar
SO confused on this. It was never mentioned that 'some' is the negated version of 'all.' I understand how that makes sense but I'm starting believe these lessons aren't very comprehensive.
@ShanR It's there, but perhaps a little easy to miss. In the negating "all" lesson, it says that the negation of "All dogs are friendly" is not "No dogs are friendly", but is instead "Some dogs are not friendly"
I am not sure what rule we should be assuming for this question with the sentence started with some. I feel like so far with questions 1 and 2 none of the rules I wore ( which were the rules he summarizes at the end of the videos at the end of the page) coexist with the rules he put in the example.
#feedback I'm having a lot of frustrations similar to what is being mentioned here. The way things are explained changes from the written lesson to the video lesson/exercises, the examples are totally without context which means we are just learning an abstract series of skills and have no understanding of how they will come in handy on the LSAT, and it is utterly frustrating that stopping the video makes the screen go blank. I'm pausing the video to look at something that is confusing. It's incredibly aggravating to have it disappear. Having to scrolling up and down isn't solving this, it makes the material even more confusing and the experience more aggravating.
It's too much frustration at this early stage. I have done 2 other prep courses in my life that were pretty great and I was doing a book before I changed over to 7sage based on old reviews, and I never felt this frustrated. Self-study honestly felt better - less discouraging. The number of people who are leaving frustrated comments is telling.
I agree; when I don't see a video explaining lessons, I think about switching programs. You would expect a video explanation for more than 50 dollars a month. It's unacceptable. Prepforsuccess, I am considering you...
These examples/explanations are kinda trash. They are not uniform or cohesive. The notations between explanations goes from acronyms to whole words and vice versa. Please standardize the format.
These are confusing. Why do we need to negate the statement if the opposite of "some" is either "all" or "none" and vice versa with "most"? I'm consumed on what's the difference of using an opposing term compared to negating the sentence to make it more strenuous on the mind.
I was having a VERY hard time wrapping my head around this until I substituted the words into A and B, then I got it! For example #1 (original) no A are B (Lawgic) A->/B (negated) A ←s→B
286 comments
Was anyone else incredibly confused by this lesson? I don't even feel like this was helpful.
What confused you exactly ?
@taylor.g2901 It is confusing you are correct and I am with you on this!!!!!!! :(
What is the purpose of this? like how is negating these statements going to apply to the LSAT and the questions at all? #help
I dont understand how this is helpful. Someone please share how this could be utilized
Thats how I feel about this whole section honestly. You are never going to have time to do any of this Lawgic nonsense on the test itself.
hope this helps
Negating isn’t about making the opposite true.
Instead, you’re breaking the relationship between the conditions.
How to negate a conditional ("If P, then Q"):
To negate it, say:
"P happens, but Q does not happen."
(This breaks the promise that P always leads to Q.)
Shortcut for negating quantifiers:
"All" becomes "Some not."
Example: "All cats are furry" → "Some cats are not furry."
"Some" becomes "None."
Example: "Some cats are furry" → "No cats are furry."
Key idea for conditionals:
You’re saying the sufficient condition (P) occurs without the necessary condition (Q).
Example:
Original: "If it rains, then the ground gets wet."
Negation: "It rains, but the ground doesn’t get wet."
This avoids flipping everything to the opposite while focusing on breaking the relationship.
I have never used my brain so much yet felt so stupid
Will we be taught in a future lesson how this can be applied to LSAT questions? Because I am currently not seeing it.
@mibuch I am literally wondering the same thing. Like all these tips and when it comes to drilling im so lost lol
@mibuch I agree. How does this apply to evaluating the stimulus and answer choices. Like this doesn't feel like it is helping me answer questions.
i had to write this one out because i was lost at first. question 2. "Some alphabets are not phonetic." meaning "At least 1 alphabet is not phonetic" so to negate that would be "It is not the case that at least 1 alphabet is not phonetic," so "no alphabet is not phonetic" is the same as "all alphabets are phonetic"
Did I miss this lesson, Im so confused
The grind is real
real
real.
real
real
real
real
real
I cant lie.... this is probs the first lesson I got 0 correct, and was genuienly confused by the correct answer
This is the most confusing thing ever
Could "All" not be negated by saying "Not all" which seems to be similar to "some"?
The "remainder of the rules" seems entirely different from the rules discussed in the preceding lessons.
the fact that a different person is answering this and not using the concepts we just covered is very confusing
Can someone explain how in this, "Some alphabets are not phonetic.", the not phonetic became just phonetic? Really struggling with the double negation
@shay_lsat For it to be true, it means some alphabets are not phonetic. By saying all alphabets are phonetic, you deny the possibility of some not being phonetic.
@shay_lsat Some alphabets are not phonetic is arguing at least one alphabet is not phoenic so alphabet some arrow not-phonetic. If I want to refute the claim of at least one I need to demonstrate that all is the other so I would need to counter with no that is incorrect ALL alphabets are phonetic there is not a single one that is non-phonetic
#help I am lost on this lesson. Why are we doing this drill? I am getting confused between negating and contrapositives. Why do we have to negate some/most statements? Don't we just use our knowledge of some/most to tell whether the LSAT authors have made an error in inferencing?
I am also lost as to why #4 takes some and negates it to all. Doesn't some negate to none? Is it because "some alphabets are not phonetic" negates to "it is not the case that some alphabets are not phonetic," which means "all alphabets are phonetic?"
Hello, has anyone answered your questions about the purpose of this drill? I am also getting confused between negation and contrapositive and when to use which.
I agree! Very confused on it all. I also believe videos added would slightly help. I am not sure as to why the videos stopped in between teachings.
I've been lost for all these drills. I am just starring them and coming back later once I have a better understanding. #feedback
negation of some is none not all
did you by chance get a better understanding as to how the negation of relationships applies to any portion of the test?
thanks
Hey Mag1069,
I posted a comment earlier, maybe it will help you as well
I wish they'd bring back videos, too, especially video answers for Skill Builders! We had them for Grammar, but the logic stuff could really use it because it's so new to so many of us, unlike grammar
"Some alphabets are not phonetic."
"All alphabets are phonetic. (A → P)"
bro what. if some are not, then clearly not all can be phonetic. This makes no sense
SO confused on this. It was never mentioned that 'some' is the negated version of 'all.' I understand how that makes sense but I'm starting believe these lessons aren't very comprehensive.
@ShanR It's there, but perhaps a little easy to miss. In the negating "all" lesson, it says that the negation of "All dogs are friendly" is not "No dogs are friendly", but is instead "Some dogs are not friendly"
@SavanahHoffstein Thank you
I am confused on Question 2: The rule for some is
Some A are B
then the negation would be
No A are B
so for this question I wrote
No Alphabets are Phonetic.
I am not sure what rule we should be assuming for this question with the sentence started with some. I feel like so far with questions 1 and 2 none of the rules I wore ( which were the rules he summarizes at the end of the videos at the end of the page) coexist with the rules he put in the example.
@anulirz hey, i think "some" and "some not" follows different rules, btw this AI explanation/exercise really helped me, maybe you should try it out?
Grab a pen and paper right now and do this physically.
Draw This
Draw a box and label it "All Alphabets"
Now draw 10 small circles inside the box. Each circle = one alphabet.
The Original Statement
"Some alphabets are not phonetic"
Now shade in 3 circles and label them "NOT phonetic"
The remaining 7 are phonetic.
Your statement is satisfied. Just needed at least one shaded circle. ✅
Now Try YOUR Negation
"No alphabets are phonetic"
Shade ALL 10 circles — none are phonetic.
Now look at your drawing. Are some alphabets not phonetic?
Yes — literally all of them are not phonetic. Your original statement is still true. You didn't kill it, you made it even more true. ❌
Now Try The Correct Negation
"All alphabets are phonetic"
Erase all shading — every circle is now phonetic.
Now look at your drawing. Can you find even one circle that is not phonetic?
No. Zero shaded circles. The original statement is completely dead. ✅
@anulirz
Some alphabets are not phonetic.
You see the words "are not" it's not similar to what we learned about negating "Some A are B."
When we read question 2, we are reading Some A are NOT phonetic. This means that all alphabets are phonetic.
But if we say some alphabets are phonetic, then we say no alphabets are phonetic.
Hope this makes sense!
#feedback I'm having a lot of frustrations similar to what is being mentioned here. The way things are explained changes from the written lesson to the video lesson/exercises, the examples are totally without context which means we are just learning an abstract series of skills and have no understanding of how they will come in handy on the LSAT, and it is utterly frustrating that stopping the video makes the screen go blank. I'm pausing the video to look at something that is confusing. It's incredibly aggravating to have it disappear. Having to scrolling up and down isn't solving this, it makes the material even more confusing and the experience more aggravating.
It's too much frustration at this early stage. I have done 2 other prep courses in my life that were pretty great and I was doing a book before I changed over to 7sage based on old reviews, and I never felt this frustrated. Self-study honestly felt better - less discouraging. The number of people who are leaving frustrated comments is telling.
I agree; when I don't see a video explaining lessons, I think about switching programs. You would expect a video explanation for more than 50 dollars a month. It's unacceptable. Prepforsuccess, I am considering you...
These examples/explanations are kinda trash. They are not uniform or cohesive. The notations between explanations goes from acronyms to whole words and vice versa. Please standardize the format.
This is very confusing, is there a video for this lesson? #help
DITTO im getting them right but i don't understand why I'm getting it right
I feel the same way. I can follow the formula to the right answer, but don't know why it's right
#feedback
The example of the wrong negation for question 4 is identical to the original statement
These are confusing. Why do we need to negate the statement if the opposite of "some" is either "all" or "none" and vice versa with "most"? I'm consumed on what's the difference of using an opposing term compared to negating the sentence to make it more strenuous on the mind.
It would be helpful if there were something in the lessons that showed how this will relate to questions on the test.
I was having a VERY hard time wrapping my head around this until I substituted the words into A and B, then I got it! For example #1 (original) no A are B (Lawgic) A->/B (negated) A ←s→B