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'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
@ryokace One way to rephrase "some" claims in in terms of things existing. If I say some cats are orange, that is equivalent to saying there exists and orange cat. Since this question is talking about future scenarios (or a world in which something happens), they've phrased the answer in terms of those worlds existing.
@QuinWestover When "no" and "unless" appear together, just follow the "Unless" rule. The "no" just acts as a negation of the concept it's connected to:
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?
@GwenBattis There's a difference the negation of a conditional and the contrapositive of a conditional. You're referring to the contrapositive, which is another way of restating a conditional.
This exercise is about negation, which means expressing the idea that the conditional is false.
The reason you might be conflating the two is that "negation" is part of what's involved in a contrapositive -- we switch both sides and negate both sides. But that's not the same thing as negating the entire conditional itself.
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.
@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
@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.
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 think its contextual with this one, but I feel similarly:
Earlier we learned that "some" statements are bidirectional: Cats <- S -> Pets and Pets <-S-> Cats
But either the negation or the context make this idea invalid for this question: record Sell well people <-S-> NOT famous is valid but to say that famous people <- S-> record NOT sell well is not valid
Correct me somebody, sorry if that was misleading or unhelpful, Ella
@AliGoldberg Since the statement has two conditional indicator No and Without they cancel each other out to 'One can eat a hamburger while drinking beer.
Now we are trying to negate the whole statement that we just translated into lawgic (H → B) by:
1) Keep the first claim H
2) Deny the conditional relationship which is the arrow to some or and
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.
161 comments
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'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
I've been a little confused about when in the lawgic negation you use the arrow or you use and
I don't understand question 5. Where did the second part come from? I understand W and /F just not the last part of the answer.
@ryokace One way to rephrase "some" claims in in terms of things existing. If I say some cats are orange, that is equivalent to saying there exists and orange cat. Since this question is talking about future scenarios (or a world in which something happens), they've phrased the answer in terms of those worlds existing.
I got a question about Q3: Why is not 3+ -> /C?
@EvaCarrascoLopez.PhD
It looks like they're using C to mean cancelled rather than class. If C did mean classes were in session, your translation would be right
I might have missed the purpose of negating conditionals. But could someone explain why?
@Danaizha I think it’s because you cannot do contrapositives for “some” and “most”?
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.
@Kevin_Lin Can you help please?
@QuinWestover When "no" and "unless" appear together, just follow the "Unless" rule. The "no" just acts as a negation of the concept it's connected to:
No X unless Y.
If not Y --> no X
If X, then Y
@Kevin_Lin Thanks!
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?
@tyeishajohnson I'd say no because the use of "it's not the case that" is for "most" statements.
Question 2 says: "No one can eat a hamburger without drinking beer" which is another way of saying "All people eat hamburgers without drinking beer"
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?
@GwenBattis There's a difference the negation of a conditional and the contrapositive of a conditional. You're referring to the contrapositive, which is another way of restating a conditional.
This exercise is about negation, which means expressing the idea that the conditional is false.
The reason you might be conflating the two is that "negation" is part of what's involved in a contrapositive -- we switch both sides and negate both sides. But that's not the same thing as negating the entire conditional itself.
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.
@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.
@LauraBolivar Also requesting the link to the recording if you have it!!
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.
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?
@ellaryals11312
i think its contextual with this one, but I feel similarly:
Earlier we learned that "some" statements are bidirectional: Cats <- S -> Pets and Pets <-S-> Cats
But either the negation or the context make this idea invalid for this question: record Sell well people <-S-> NOT famous is valid but to say that famous people <- S-> record NOT sell well is not valid
Correct me somebody, sorry if that was misleading or unhelpful, Ella
For question 2 why doesn't without drinking a beer cancel out/negate to drinking a beer
@AliGoldberg Since the statement has two conditional indicator No and Without they cancel each other out to 'One can eat a hamburger while drinking beer.
Now we are trying to negate the whole statement that we just translated into lawgic (H → B) by:
1) Keep the first claim H
2) Deny the conditional relationship which is the arrow to some or and
3) Take the contrapositive of the last claim B
H → -B or H and -B