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.
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?
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
For the second example, after the diagramming, I found myself wanting to flip and negate the serves decaf -> serves tea to try and chain it that way. How would I recognize that this is something incorrect to do?
Anyone else a little disturbed by the floating letter buzzing around? Reminds me of insects 😵💫. They feel unnaturally alive which is uncanny since letter should not be alive!
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
Another good visualization is combining the venn diagrams from previous some sections with the set & superset visualization from the beginning of foundations:
A and B have overlapping venn diagrams.
--- ( A () B )
B is also a subset of the C superset.
--- ((B) C )
---Where the parentheses are the subset within superset bubbles used in previous videos
This means that A is overlapping with C in the same way that A is overlapping with B
--- ( A ( ( ) B ) C ) [kind of hard to illustrate without the actual circles]
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.
For the last one if I got: Tea <-- Decaf <- some -> Source from Blue Mountain Roasters, isn't this logically correct too? Just drawn differently or making an invalid inference but coming to the right conclusion?
69 comments
Little A's. aww. Makes sense
Got the decaf question right almost instantly after reading it fully idk if that's luck or actual progress
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.
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?
When I tried the cafe question on my own I did the lawgic differently but came to the same conclusion... Is how I did it still correct or no?
Cafe <-s-> Decaf BMR
Decaf -> Tea
Conclusion: Cafe <-s-> Decaf -> Tea
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.
the bucket explanation was so helpful! i definitely suggest adding such visual examples to other videos!
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 loved the visuals ( bucket and scoop) in this lesson!
@Hanifa same lol
Thats a great explanation
A ←s→ B → C
In the thinking of nesting dolls, some of A is in B and some of B is in C, Therefore some of A is in C?
@Oblivion Thinking about it in terms of nesting dolls could work.
But in your written statement it has to be "some of A is in B, and all of B is in C, therefore some of A is in C."
You can't chain what you wrote: "some of A is in B and some of B is in C"
A <--s--> B, B <--s--> C
cannot become A <--s--> C
For the second example, after the diagramming, I found myself wanting to flip and negate the serves decaf -> serves tea to try and chain it that way. How would I recognize that this is something incorrect to do?
Anyone else a little disturbed by the floating letter buzzing around? Reminds me of insects 😵💫. They feel unnaturally alive which is uncanny since letter should not be alive!
@Tombee64 like the bugs that disguise themselves as another species, to break into a nest and eat all their larvae
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!!
@Kevin_Lin
Can we also then conclude here both A & B are both sometimes C. Cant we just replace the entire argument as
Premise- A-s-B
A or B-C
Conclusion: A or B-s-C
Another good visualization is combining the venn diagrams from previous some sections with the set & superset visualization from the beginning of foundations:
A and B have overlapping venn diagrams.
--- ( A () B )
B is also a subset of the C superset.
--- ((B) C )
---Where the parentheses are the subset within superset bubbles used in previous videos
This means that A is overlapping with C in the same way that A is overlapping with B
--- ( A ( ( ) B ) C ) [kind of hard to illustrate without the actual circles]
if they did bucket examples on most of the sections, i think i would have grasped the concepts more quickly, imo
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 bucket visual was so helpful.
For the last one if I got: Tea <-- Decaf <- some -> Source from Blue Mountain Roasters, isn't this logically correct too? Just drawn differently or making an invalid inference but coming to the right conclusion?
@tjsmithpa03 Don't focus on the form of lawgic too much IMO. Just make sure you understand the actual Logic.
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.
this visual is great
If I had just watched this before doing my drill set I would've gotten a question right
formal argument 4 - some before all:
a b
b-> c
--------
a c