what's tripping me up is that i thought that statements like these on the lsat are supposed to be true? like i understand the answers i just dint understand where i would need to be doing this.
For question 3, I am confused on why the negation isn't /canceled > /3+ ? In my head, it's the if then statement that's making me want to decipher the lawgic as "3+ > canceled" - and then you would take the negation by flipping the suff/nec conditions... am I wrong? What am I missing?
For question 2, is saying that (eating hamburgers) <--some--> (not drinking beer) equivalent to saying that (not eating hamburgers) <--some--> (drinking beer)?
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.
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.
152 comments
Why can't we just think of All statements the same as conditional statements? Is the negation rule for both also essentially saying the same thing?
Can someone walk me through how to translate a conditional with both Group 3 and Group 4 indicators? Like Question 2.
for question 5 could we not put it is not the case that if the record sells well, then you will be famous.
what's tripping me up is that i thought that statements like these on the lsat are supposed to be true? like i understand the answers i just dint understand where i would need to be doing this.
my answer for question 2 was : it is not the case that no one can eat a hamburger without drinking beer. would that answer be correct?
DOLPHINS ARE MAMALS #DOLPHINSLIVESMATTER
for question 2, does the slash have to go to B? Could it instead be B <some> /H?
FIVE FOR FIVE LFG
For question 3, I am confused on why the negation isn't /canceled > /3+ ? In my head, it's the if then statement that's making me want to decipher the lawgic as "3+ > canceled" - and then you would take the negation by flipping the suff/nec conditions... am I wrong? What am I missing?
For question 2, is saying that (eating hamburgers) <--some--> (not drinking beer) equivalent to saying that (not eating hamburgers) <--some--> (drinking beer)?
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.