So, what I understand is that when negating the whole conditional claims we negate the second section or the necessary condition, and for all we use some and negate B?
Finally got them all right, this lesson was really helpful in regards to breaking down each quantifier set. The other lessons I found confusing but finally it was in this lesson that it truly clicked.
For question 5, I got the first part right, but I don't understand why we would also put down "Some world exists where the record sells well and you are not famous. (W ←s→ /F)"
I genuinenly cannot use Lawgic it has been tripping me up SO bad. It is way easier for me to just read it and understand what it's saying without the use of symbols.
So if the relationship of "all A are B" can, as we know from Group 1 conditional indicators, be expressed as a conditional relationship A -> B, does that mean when negating A -> B, we can use the method we used to negate "all A are B," so like in #5 when we answer that "some A are not B"? So there are really two options for expressing the negation of the conditional A -> B?
I got 100% on these, but I'm confused why you would even do this. I always figured you belive what the LSAT says is true, to get rid of your own assumptions. Can someone help me understand better why we would do this? Is it to find the weakness in an argument?
I realized it is actually easier to not use lawgic to translate it, it messes up the idea in my brain. Would it be fine to just negate it without using lawgic for this? I got only 1-2/5 in the first two lessons using logic and 5/5 when I was not.
I don’t like example 1 because he explains how from his knowledge he doesn’t know any water breathing mammals. While that is true! I presumed we have to turn off our world knowledge brain to get to an answer in LSAT questions. So if we negate all non water breathing mammals have limbs would the negation not be some non W breathing mammals have limbs. I’m using the rule from last lesson about negating All. It could also be it’s not the case that all nonWB mammals have limbs. Why did the instructor use outside knowledge for this.
I read a lot of comments about not doing very well in these skill builders so I wanted to share something that made me do good on them.
1: Read the statement and take a minute to process what was just said.
2: write out what the statement is using in lawgic.
3: negate the statement by adding "it is not the case that..." but I prefer to use "it is not true that.."
4: Take a little to process what was just said.
5: Translate to lawgic.
Lets do a quick example.
All non-water breathing mammals have limbs.
1: okay, all non water breathing mammals have limbs. Got it.
2: using lawgic this means: nwbm ---> limbs
3: Lets negate: It is not true that all non-water breathing mammals have limbs.
4: What does this mean? It means that some non water breathing mammals do not have limbs. Why? Because we were told that it wasnt true ALL non water breathing mammals have limbs. Therefor, some must not have limbs.
5: Lets translate some non water breathing mammals do not have limbs to lawgic: We know that for some we use <--s-->
therefor NWBM <--s--> /L
What does that mean if we read it? well some non-water breathing mammals do not have limbs and some that do not have limbs are non water breathing mammals. (since some uses <--s-->)
i'm wondering if you could verbally translate <-s-> as "sometimes" instead of always "some"? Like for #5 for instance, I also wrote W <-s-> /F, but I worded it as "sometimes you can sell well without being famous". Does that work?
Some of these Lawgic translations are tricky for me, but I'm noticing in the explanations that I am not missing the concept and am understanding the meaning intuitively. If you are feeling the same way, I think it is safe to skip. This seems only intended for those who don't understand the nature of "some," "most," "all," etc.
Q4: Some graduate level philosophy courses are available to undergraduates.
the answer said: No graduate level philosophy courses are available to undergraduates. (G → /U)
but doesn't (G > /U) translate to "all grad level phil courses are not avail to undergrads"? shouldn't the answer choice should've been then (/G > U) instead? not saying the answer is wrong but i think the translation part was the contrapositive?
Q5: i'm having a road block. is it possible to translate this q to english?
I'm a bit confused the difference between negating conditional statements and finding the contrapositive of conditional statements, specifically the traditional if-->then statements. I understand the rules for the all,some,and most but what about #3 and #5?
4
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.
135 comments
So, what I understand is that when negating the whole conditional claims we negate the second section or the necessary condition, and for all we use some and negate B?
Finally got them all right, this lesson was really helpful in regards to breaking down each quantifier set. The other lessons I found confusing but finally it was in this lesson that it truly clicked.
For question 5, I got the first part right, but I don't understand why we would also put down "Some world exists where the record sells well and you are not famous. (W ←s→ /F)"
does someone mind explaining this to me please?
I genuinenly cannot use Lawgic it has been tripping me up SO bad. It is way easier for me to just read it and understand what it's saying without the use of symbols.
I'm really understanding this section! However, I find that lawgic often confuses me even more. Is anyone else finding something similar?
So if the relationship of "all A are B" can, as we know from Group 1 conditional indicators, be expressed as a conditional relationship A -> B, does that mean when negating A -> B, we can use the method we used to negate "all A are B," so like in #5 when we answer that "some A are not B"? So there are really two options for expressing the negation of the conditional A -> B?
Should the first answer for #3 be "more than three inches of snow is not sufficient~," not just "three inches of snow"?
On question 5, why could I not say, there is a world where, if the record doesn't sell well, you still can be famous?
For question 2 why doesn't without drinking a beer cancel out/negate to drinking a beer
I got 100% on these, but I'm confused why you would even do this. I always figured you belive what the LSAT says is true, to get rid of your own assumptions. Can someone help me understand better why we would do this? Is it to find the weakness in an argument?
I enjoyed this activity as it was helpful but the question answers are a bit confusing compared to the video explanation.
I love the explanations, but how will I know when to apply Lawgical negation with LR? I hope It will make sense once I practice more LR questions.
Guys, take notes from the last 4 videos on negations!!!!! Life changer I am getting 5/5
5/5 "it is not the case that" is the goat of phrases
I realized it is actually easier to not use lawgic to translate it, it messes up the idea in my brain. Would it be fine to just negate it without using lawgic for this? I got only 1-2/5 in the first two lessons using logic and 5/5 when I was not.
I don’t like example 1 because he explains how from his knowledge he doesn’t know any water breathing mammals. While that is true! I presumed we have to turn off our world knowledge brain to get to an answer in LSAT questions. So if we negate all non water breathing mammals have limbs would the negation not be some non W breathing mammals have limbs. I’m using the rule from last lesson about negating All. It could also be it’s not the case that all nonWB mammals have limbs. Why did the instructor use outside knowledge for this.
I read a lot of comments about not doing very well in these skill builders so I wanted to share something that made me do good on them.
1: Read the statement and take a minute to process what was just said.
2: write out what the statement is using in lawgic.
3: negate the statement by adding "it is not the case that..." but I prefer to use "it is not true that.."
4: Take a little to process what was just said.
5: Translate to lawgic.
Lets do a quick example.
All non-water breathing mammals have limbs.
1: okay, all non water breathing mammals have limbs. Got it.
2: using lawgic this means: nwbm ---> limbs
3: Lets negate: It is not true that all non-water breathing mammals have limbs.
4: What does this mean? It means that some non water breathing mammals do not have limbs. Why? Because we were told that it wasnt true ALL non water breathing mammals have limbs. Therefor, some must not have limbs.
5: Lets translate some non water breathing mammals do not have limbs to lawgic: We know that for some we use <--s-->
therefor NWBM <--s--> /L
What does that mean if we read it? well some non-water breathing mammals do not have limbs and some that do not have limbs are non water breathing mammals. (since some uses <--s-->)
I hope this helps guys!
i'm wondering if you could verbally translate <-s-> as "sometimes" instead of always "some"? Like for #5 for instance, I also wrote W <-s-> /F, but I worded it as "sometimes you can sell well without being famous". Does that work?
#help
Can someone possible explain to me how
#3 cant be /glpc -> available to undergrads
and how #5 is W <-s-> /F and not W -> /F?
Some of these Lawgic translations are tricky for me, but I'm noticing in the explanations that I am not missing the concept and am understanding the meaning intuitively. If you are feeling the same way, I think it is safe to skip. This seems only intended for those who don't understand the nature of "some," "most," "all," etc.
my question is, why is the last one different than the ones we did in the past?
If the record sells well, then you will be famous.
records sells well ---> famous
/Famous ---> /record did not sell well
Why are we now adding (W ←s→ /F) SOME if the sentence does not imply a conditional relationship????
0/5 by the way! :((((((
i've finally figured out the difference between negating an "all statement" and a conditional statement because they seemed the same to me.
every "all statements" is a conditional, but not every conditional is an "all statement".
the negation of an "all statement "can be one of these 2: X <-- s --> /y or x and /y
the negation of a conditional can ONLY be: x and /y
i hope this is right and helps someone
Q4: Some graduate level philosophy courses are available to undergraduates.
the answer said: No graduate level philosophy courses are available to undergraduates. (G → /U)
but doesn't (G > /U) translate to "all grad level phil courses are not avail to undergrads"? shouldn't the answer choice should've been then (/G > U) instead? not saying the answer is wrong but i think the translation part was the contrapositive?
Q5: i'm having a road block. is it possible to translate this q to english?
/F <s> RSW
/F and RSW
so what's the difference between negating and finding contrapositives ???
I'm a bit confused the difference between negating conditional statements and finding the contrapositive of conditional statements, specifically the traditional if-->then statements. I understand the rules for the all,some,and most but what about #3 and #5?