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-->)
@goodluckonthelsatguys This helped me so much. I was feeling really frustrated, but I applied your technique to the following skill builder and got them all correct. Thank you for sharing!
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.
@JoannaClohessy I saw a recorded class today with Ms. Mcduffy, and honestly I noticed that reading helps me better than doing the whole symbol and negations -- I feel like he confuses me a lot as well, so I'll just use his knowledge when I cannot get the answer by my own logic
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?
@laurenstudies I agree as well! I imagine the information is being presented to us this way because some of the answers will be translations of the lawgic
@LayHen11 100 percent. Although i feel like learning the foundations whether you translate to logic or not, still helps me interpret small nuanced words properly.
@[Deleted] I think because "no one" was on the side of the hamburger in the sentence, in the original Lawgic we would original have "not eating burger," so we already have /hamburger.
If we put that term as the negate sufficient, then we get:
hamburger -> beer
If we put beer term as negate sufficient, then we get:
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.
Hi all, I made another flashcard set. This time for memorizing Quantifiers. Flashcards are what really helped me in undergrad and so I decided to make them to companion my 7sage studies. Thought I'd share to help others who would benefit :) made a folder that I will most likely add more sets to as I go. Much Love and happy studying! https://quizlet.com/user/ehoffmanwallace/folders/lsat-7sage-flashcards
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.
What helped me with these problems is remembering the negation diagram for each quantifier. Immediately when I see "all" I know that the negation is: some A are not B.
So for #1 All non-water breathing mammals have limbs.
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.
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.
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.
is showing the conditional statement with it's contrapositive. This specific lesson is on negations not contrapositives. A contrapositive shows the same relationship is a different way, but a negation denies that relationship. I hope that helps!
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?
This one is insanely frustrating for me. To those that did well on this, what was your strategy? I cant get any consistency with the formulas. The english translations are not too hard but i cant translate for the life of me.
@JibrilAbdrabboh yeah after reviewing it seems easier to translate to english negation then lawgic, it also seems like the ambiguity of English is on full display here so i try not to worry too much so long as translation is somewhat accurate.
Yes, that is fine! The only purpose of translating an English statement to Lawgic is to demonstrate how easy it is to manipulate the statement's conditions. If it achieves the opposite effect, then you certainly do not have to use it!
I'm confused on question 5: I understand where you got W->F but how did some get involved. I thought to conditional statement it goes A->B and then A and /B
@AmyMurillo The negation of the conditional relationship A -> B can either be represented either as
A <-s-> /B
or as
A and /B
Both symbolize the same truth relationship between the two statements. In Question 5's case, it just makes more sense to use the second method because the relationship isn't intuitively categorical ("All A are B"). I think the answer is given in both forms to communicate their interchangeability, though the first makes far more sense on first reading.
I don't know about you, but putting it in terms of "worlds" doesn't work as well me. I think it would make a little more sense to write the second relationship as
"In some cases, the record could sell well and you could still not become famous."
172 comments
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!
@goodluckonthelsatguys This helped me so much. I was feeling really frustrated, but I applied your technique to the following skill builder and got them all correct. Thank you for sharing!
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.
@JoannaClohessy I saw a recorded class today with Ms. Mcduffy, and honestly I noticed that reading helps me better than doing the whole symbol and negations -- I feel like he confuses me a lot as well, so I'll just use his knowledge when I cannot get the answer by my own logic
@LauraBolivar do you mind sharing the link to that recorded course? I also get so tripped up using lawgic symbols.
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?
@Kihla333 I have the same questions
I enjoyed this activity as it was helpful but the question answers are a bit confusing compared to the video explanation.
I'm really understanding this section! However, I find that lawgic often confuses me even more. Is anyone else finding something similar?
@LayHen11 Yeah I feel similarly! I like the starter "it's not the case that" for negating statements or relationships, rather than using the lawgic.
@laurenstudies I agree as well! I imagine the information is being presented to us this way because some of the answers will be translations of the lawgic
@LayHen11 100 percent. Although i feel like learning the foundations whether you translate to logic or not, still helps me interpret small nuanced words properly.
5/5 "it is not the case that" is the goat of phrases
0/5... this makes 0 sense
@MayaKonkel You're not alone lol I also keep getting 0/5.
@[Deleted] Like why is #2 not:
/drink beer -> /eat burger
we see without, so negate sufficient
then negate the phrase:
/drink beer -> eat burger
??????
#help
@[Deleted] I think because "no one" was on the side of the hamburger in the sentence, in the original Lawgic we would original have "not eating burger," so we already have /hamburger.
If we put that term as the negate sufficient, then we get:
hamburger -> beer
If we put beer term as negate sufficient, then we get:
/beer -> /hamburger
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.
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.
Hi all, I made another flashcard set. This time for memorizing Quantifiers. Flashcards are what really helped me in undergrad and so I decided to make them to companion my 7sage studies. Thought I'd share to help others who would benefit :) made a folder that I will most likely add more sets to as I go. Much Love and happy studying! https://quizlet.com/user/ehoffmanwallace/folders/lsat-7sage-flashcards
@Elideebeep Thank you so very much!!
@JuliaWise sure thing!
@Elideebeep Thank you!
@Cristrini you got it!
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.
@EshaZaveri I agree I feel like I heavily overthink in this section when I try to use lawgic.
I do not get this at all.
you will get it eventually
What helped me with these problems is remembering the negation diagram for each quantifier. Immediately when I see "all" I know that the negation is: some A are not B.
So for #1 All non-water breathing mammals have limbs.
Becomes: Some mammals do not have Limbs.
Hope that helps! You got it!
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.
Guys, take notes from the last 4 videos on negations!!!!! Life changer I am getting 5/5
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.
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! :((((((
@CeliaAcosta
records sells well ---> famous
/Famous ---> /record did not sell well
is showing the conditional statement with it's contrapositive. This specific lesson is on negations not contrapositives. A contrapositive shows the same relationship is a different way, but a negation denies that relationship. I hope that helps!
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?
This one is insanely frustrating for me. To those that did well on this, what was your strategy? I cant get any consistency with the formulas. The english translations are not too hard but i cant translate for the life of me.
@Sagacious_Saxon0424 For me i'm writing the it out fist in lawgic then saying what would make this not true so,
No one can eat a hamburger without drinking beer.
Eat → / Beer
then I say how can I make it not true in english not lawgic.
So that would be some people eat with needing beer then translate that
Eat ←s→ Beer or. ( Eat and /Beer)
Hope this helped, idky but its easier for me to go
English
lawgic
negate in english
lawgic
@JibrilAbdrabboh yeah after reviewing it seems easier to translate to english negation then lawgic, it also seems like the ambiguity of English is on full display here so i try not to worry too much so long as translation is somewhat accurate.
I find the arrows confusing. It makes more sense to me to write the translation and negation in the full words. is that okay? #feedback
Yes, that is fine! The only purpose of translating an English statement to Lawgic is to demonstrate how easy it is to manipulate the statement's conditions. If it achieves the opposite effect, then you certainly do not have to use it!
I'm confused on question 5: I understand where you got W->F but how did some get involved. I thought to conditional statement it goes A->B and then A and /B
@AmyMurillo The negation of the conditional relationship A -> B can either be represented either as
A <-s-> /B
or as
A and /B
Both symbolize the same truth relationship between the two statements. In Question 5's case, it just makes more sense to use the second method because the relationship isn't intuitively categorical ("All A are B"). I think the answer is given in both forms to communicate their interchangeability, though the first makes far more sense on first reading.
I don't know about you, but putting it in terms of "worlds" doesn't work as well me. I think it would make a little more sense to write the second relationship as
"In some cases, the record could sell well and you could still not become famous."
FIVE FOR FIVE LFG
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
@emilylu Thank you so much, this makes a lot of sense to me!
Not understand the difference between negating these two:
1) If more than three inches of snow accumulate, then classes will be canceled.
2) If the record sells well, then you will be famous.
1 Answer: Three inches of snow accumulating is not sufficient to cancel class. /(3 → C)
We could get three or more inches of snow accumulating and still have class. (3+ and /C)
2 Answer: The record could sell well and you could still be not famous. (W and /F)
Some world exists where the record sells well and you are not famous. (W ←s→ /F)
Why can't the second one say: The record selling well is not sufficient enough to be famous?
Can you also say "all graduate level philosophy courses are not available to undergraduates" as a correct negation?