That last paragraph describing the scoops and buckets is one of the best visual/written explanations I have seen to explain relationships and intersectionality. If more examples had explanations like that that are easy to visualize, it will greatly improve test taker's understanding of the topic and why it is important. #feedback
Wait this actually confused me even more because the way I wrote this down was by using the general form. Idk man I feel like I couldve just read the passage and gotten the answer correct quicker than translating.
For me translating to lawgic and drawing diagrams just stresses me out and I only have a minute and a half to really digest the content id rather just read and learn about the relationships in the writing rather than draw it out. I don't really like that about this program as I feel it relies too heavily and drawing it out when in reality we have a minute and a half on average for each question
Yeah, I agree drawing it out sometimes complicates it for me and other times it's clear, but you have to know how to diagram it for it to serve you well. Oh my gosh....
EXACTLY!! It makes me feel like i'm approaching the questions wrong if I dont translate the questions into lawgic. I feel like yes it does help you break it down but with the time being against me I don't really use LAWgic in the prep test rather I just read and cross out the AC that are weak.
After doing tons of drills and watching the videos to each drill im officially memorizing each conditional and every indicator. I kept mistaking necessary and sufficient condition and I was sick of it lol. 7 sage explained them but wasn't enough for me to be honest. I found that the loophole book explained it much better..,like way better.
When you say drills, are you referring to the examples listed or actual LSAT example questions? But I get it, I had to go to ChatGPT for even more reinforcement. I will consider that book though too, thank you so much. Is it text heavy? I'm a mom and don't have time to read a alot.
Drills meaning like LSAT questions as well as prep tests. As far as the book it is text heavy but it's not bad at all. I am not a big reader and it's def easy to read. Plus it has assignments included to see if your actually understanding the material.
Just wanted to say the visual example was super effective, thank you for that! I've been trying to make visuals for a lot of the more complicated topics we've covered and used a similar beaker analogy for sufficiency/necessity. I'd love for more lessons to include visual comparisons like these!
in the visual shouldn't we be scooping some As into the B bucket and also scooping some Bs into the A bucket if we want to be able to reverse the <-s-> claim. I fully understand that some is reversible but the visual says otherwise if you scoop only from A to B and then B to C
I followed this section easier than the previous idk how many. Like I could've explained this concept before I got the explanation. I needed this win lol. My brain hurts after concept on concept on concept.
I am so thankfuk for 7sage. I took the lsat with minimal prep and couldnt pass a 155. These lessons are opening my eyes and genuinely making me excited to learn. This makes so much sense. ROTATE THE SOME AND PUT THE PUZZLE TOGEHER!!!
Some Laker players are basketball stars. All basketball stars are invited to the All star game. Therefore, some Laker players where invited to the All star game
Just adding my two cents, from what I have observed doing the questions is when the flaw is in the stimulus, it generally goes to the Flaw in the reasoning/ Parallel flaw.
And if the flaw sits in the answers, they are mostly in the Must be true/ Most strongly supported.
If this helps: The first 3 three formal arguments:
1) If A → B,A,∴ B 2) If A → B, not B,∴ not A
3) If A → Band B → C then A → C.
3
[deleted]
Wednesday, Nov 13, 2024
I recommend having a tab with the negating lessons for some most all and just regular statements and doing it, asking yourself self how they got to it in the lesson and how you work it out and write out the translation. Then when you go through the answers for all three pages, it makes his reasoning easier to understand. I find I still made mistakes by forgetting about the earlier indicators, but it helps with the confusion if you do not understand at first like me. Hope this helps.
this is kind of ringing a bell for me. I have struggled with some questions on drills that are identify the argument most similar to the text above. in the answer choices, am i looking for the same formula? for example like this bucket idea? idk. am i making sense?
73 comments
That last paragraph describing the scoops and buckets is one of the best visual/written explanations I have seen to explain relationships and intersectionality. If more examples had explanations like that that are easy to visualize, it will greatly improve test taker's understanding of the topic and why it is important. #feedback
I agree, this was by far the most helpful part of the last couple lessons for me.
The bucket visualizer was actually super helpful.
Totally agree, this was the most helpful visual aid for me so far in the course
If you want to see formal arg. 4 in action, look at this question
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-116-section-3-question-21/
This example is SO helpful, THANK YOU!
Wait this actually confused me even more because the way I wrote this down was by using the general form. Idk man I feel like I couldve just read the passage and gotten the answer correct quicker than translating.
For me translating to lawgic and drawing diagrams just stresses me out and I only have a minute and a half to really digest the content id rather just read and learn about the relationships in the writing rather than draw it out. I don't really like that about this program as I feel it relies too heavily and drawing it out when in reality we have a minute and a half on average for each question
Yeah, I agree drawing it out sometimes complicates it for me and other times it's clear, but you have to know how to diagram it for it to serve you well. Oh my gosh....
s
EXACTLY!! It makes me feel like i'm approaching the questions wrong if I dont translate the questions into lawgic. I feel like yes it does help you break it down but with the time being against me I don't really use LAWgic in the prep test rather I just read and cross out the AC that are weak.
After doing tons of drills and watching the videos to each drill im officially memorizing each conditional and every indicator. I kept mistaking necessary and sufficient condition and I was sick of it lol. 7 sage explained them but wasn't enough for me to be honest. I found that the loophole book explained it much better..,like way better.
When you say drills, are you referring to the examples listed or actual LSAT example questions? But I get it, I had to go to ChatGPT for even more reinforcement. I will consider that book though too, thank you so much. Is it text heavy? I'm a mom and don't have time to read a alot.
Drills meaning like LSAT questions as well as prep tests. As far as the book it is text heavy but it's not bad at all. I am not a big reader and it's def easy to read. Plus it has assignments included to see if your actually understanding the material.
grok
I had to turn the captions on and rewind because I was like, "No way he just dropped Grok in there"
scoop
if they did bucket examples on most of the sections, i think i would have grasped the concepts more quickly, imo
Just wanted to say the visual example was super effective, thank you for that! I've been trying to make visuals for a lot of the more complicated topics we've covered and used a similar beaker analogy for sufficiency/necessity. I'd love for more lessons to include visual comparisons like these!
the bucket explanation was so helpful! i definitely suggest adding such visual examples to other videos!
I loved the visuals ( bucket and scoop) in this lesson!
@Hanifa same lol
The bucket visual was so helpful.
He's flyingggg through this one. Had to slow down the video.
Little A's. aww. Makes sense
in the visual shouldn't we be scooping some As into the B bucket and also scooping some Bs into the A bucket if we want to be able to reverse the <-s-> claim. I fully understand that some is reversible but the visual says otherwise if you scoop only from A to B and then B to C
I followed this section easier than the previous idk how many. Like I could've explained this concept before I got the explanation. I needed this win lol. My brain hurts after concept on concept on concept.
The whole buckets and scoops analogy: here is how I understand it. Imagine that A is sugar cubes, B is an espresso shot and C is foamed milk
If you add "some" sugar (A) to an espresso (B), then it becomes espresso with sugar (B).
Then if you add the espresso with sugar (B) to foamed milk (C), it becomes a latte (C).
So you can say that there is some sugar (A) in the latte (C), because of the espresso with sugar (B) that was added to it.
Let me know if this makes sense to you:)
this visual is great
I am so thankfuk for 7sage. I took the lsat with minimal prep and couldnt pass a 155. These lessons are opening my eyes and genuinely making me excited to learn. This makes so much sense. ROTATE THE SOME AND PUT THE PUZZLE TOGEHER!!!
Some Laker players are basketball stars. All basketball stars are invited to the All star game. Therefore, some Laker players where invited to the All star game
@LamontNarcisse Luka 60 ball last night!!
@madeinkeaven I'm a Mavs fan Luka's name still hurts me lol
If this confuses you, look up the some train from the logical reasoning bible and it explains this type of argument really well
Just adding my two cents, from what I have observed doing the questions is when the flaw is in the stimulus, it generally goes to the Flaw in the reasoning/ Parallel flaw.
And if the flaw sits in the answers, they are mostly in the Must be true/ Most strongly supported.
some tom cruise movies star katie holmes. all katie holmes movies are good. therefore, some good movies star tom cruise.
TC-mov ← s → KH → good. therefore, TC-mov ← s → good.
If this helps: The first 3 three formal arguments:
1) If A → B,A,∴ B 2) If A → B, not B,∴ not A
3) If A → Band B → C then A → C.
I recommend having a tab with the negating lessons for some most all and just regular statements and doing it, asking yourself self how they got to it in the lesson and how you work it out and write out the translation. Then when you go through the answers for all three pages, it makes his reasoning easier to understand. I find I still made mistakes by forgetting about the earlier indicators, but it helps with the confusion if you do not understand at first like me. Hope this helps.
Got the decaf question right almost instantly after reading it fully idk if that's luck or actual progress
this is kind of ringing a bell for me. I have struggled with some questions on drills that are identify the argument most similar to the text above. in the answer choices, am i looking for the same formula? for example like this bucket idea? idk. am i making sense?