Would it be wrong to say that "Some highly compensated surgeons enjoy the sight of blood." as opposed to "Some highly compensated people enjoy the sight of blood"?
And if so, is it because the stimulus didn't explicitly state that all surgeons are highly compensated people?
I still don’t understand why q2 and q4are no valid conclusions. Especially question 4. If all pilots perform the lazy eight and most people who are able to perform the lazy 8 enjoy flying, then why can’t we conclude that most pilots enjoy flying??
The explanation for question 4 was great. I was incredibly confused why "most" didn't include the pilots if all of them have to preform the maneuver. But logically, I now see how that's not a conclusion we can draw
So for the ones that can't draw a valid conclusion this is due to the second statement not being important or connected to the first one. Its cool that vampires like blood too but you can't group surgeons with vampires just because they share something similar. Thats like saying all humans eat meat. Some bears eat meat. Some humans are bears. We share a common interest but can't truly connect it.
I'm having trouble re-translating 5 from Lawgic back into English. Is it "some pets who fantasize about attacking their owners live in a loving home"? Or "some who fantasize about attacking their owners live in a loving home"?
So, the rule is that, even though we can reverse the relationship in a "some" statement, that doesn't mean we can attach it to the all statement and chain it.
When can we chain the statements? Obviously, when there are two all statements.
All A are B. All B are C.
A-->B
B-->C
A-->C
Okay. I get that.
We cannot do this with all and some.
A-->B
B<--S--->C
This does not equal A<--S--> C
What about most? Can we chain an all with a most?
A--> B
B--M--> C
??
#Feedback #Help #Instructor #Tutor
EDIT: I wrote this after watching the video of Question 1 and 2. Then I paused the video. However, the explanation of question 4 answers this question. Nevermind.
For question 5, I got the answer, but not in the way the video describes. I did this:
AO AO AO AO AO
PC PC PC
LH LH
(AO = Attacking owners, PC = Pet Cats, LH = Loving Home)
By doing this I concluded that some pets who live in loving homes fantasize about attacking their owners. Could anyone confirm if this method is also correct?
I have moved on to LR but my highest priority subject for improvement is consistency Conditional logic. I found doing drills didnt isolate it enough.
This new skill builder isolates what we have learned in conditional logic and really helped me practice.
It would be great if there was more complicated versions of this to practice with, especially ones with context like a LR question. I found my diagrams get really messy when I have to deal with prarsing entire paragraphs. I would love a skill builder that focuses on pulling out the logic of complex statements, like the LR question stems.
#feedback the explanations for this skill builder are a bit confusing and hard to follow along. It's a bit discouraging after all those lessons and everything not making sense when reaching the skill builder. I don't think the lessons previous to this set me up well. Just some of my thoughts.
I'm so confused I feel like crying in front of my computer screen. this is hard. Also, when. I was at the lessons that said to come back. I felt like the general understanding was that it was above our abilities, but this feels like I should understand it and I just don't, which is of course worse. I'm so lost. Didn't even get one right. Perhaps I Have to rewatch all these videos again. I am really having a hard time here.
I am so. lost. Like I am not understanding this at all. Would it be worth it to just move ahead and come back later when I've gone through other lessons?
Tell me if I'm doing something wrong or not getting deep enough into the use of Lawgic and breaking down these examples, but I seem to get most of these correct just based on my intuition and understanding of immediately reading the problem. I understand Lawgic and why it's useful, but sometimes it overcomplicates things for me. Should I be concerned about this?
4
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!
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.
110 comments
For Q1,
Would it be wrong to say that "Some highly compensated surgeons enjoy the sight of blood." as opposed to "Some highly compensated people enjoy the sight of blood"?
And if so, is it because the stimulus didn't explicitly state that all surgeons are highly compensated people?
Could #5 also be:
Pet cats < -- s --> Living in loving home and fantasize about attacking owner?
I still don’t understand why q2 and q4are no valid conclusions. Especially question 4. If all pilots perform the lazy eight and most people who are able to perform the lazy 8 enjoy flying, then why can’t we conclude that most pilots enjoy flying??
How do we know when the valid conclusion is a some or most statement?
The explanation for question 4 was great. I was incredibly confused why "most" didn't include the pilots if all of them have to preform the maneuver. But logically, I now see how that's not a conclusion we can draw
So for the ones that can't draw a valid conclusion this is due to the second statement not being important or connected to the first one. Its cool that vampires like blood too but you can't group surgeons with vampires just because they share something similar. Thats like saying all humans eat meat. Some bears eat meat. Some humans are bears. We share a common interest but can't truly connect it.
Daaaang question 4 got me! I can see why though. I confused sufficient for necessary with pilots and those who perform lazy 8. Dangit. 4/5.
I'm having trouble re-translating 5 from Lawgic back into English. Is it "some pets who fantasize about attacking their owners live in a loving home"? Or "some who fantasize about attacking their owners live in a loving home"?
Question 2:
So, the rule is that, even though we can reverse the relationship in a "some" statement, that doesn't mean we can attach it to the all statement and chain it.
When can we chain the statements? Obviously, when there are two all statements.
All A are B. All B are C.
A-->B
B-->C
A-->C
Okay. I get that.
We cannot do this with all and some.
A-->B
B<--S--->C
This does not equal A<--S--> C
What about most? Can we chain an all with a most?
A--> B
B--M--> C
??
#Feedback #Help #Instructor #Tutor
EDIT: I wrote this after watching the video of Question 1 and 2. Then I paused the video. However, the explanation of question 4 answers this question. Nevermind.
"tear the throat of their owners" lol. love when there's a random joke slipped in.
fully thought question 1 said constipated instead of compensated for way too long :)
For question 5, I got the answer, but not in the way the video describes. I did this:
AO AO AO AO AO
PC PC PC
LH LH
(AO = Attacking owners, PC = Pet Cats, LH = Loving Home)
By doing this I concluded that some pets who live in loving homes fantasize about attacking their owners. Could anyone confirm if this method is also correct?
For question 2:
#help
I thought the argument for some before all is:
A -> B
B <-s-> C
Conclusion: A <-s-> C
So this was my answer:
Surgeons -> sight of blood
Vampires <-s-> sight of blood
----
And because this statement is reversible, I changed it to:
Surgeons -> sight of blood
sight of blood <-s-> Vampire
Conclusion: Surgeons <-s-> Vampire
I don't understand how there can be no valid conclusion. Where did I go wrong?
#feedback this is a great lesson.
I have moved on to LR but my highest priority subject for improvement is consistency Conditional logic. I found doing drills didnt isolate it enough.
This new skill builder isolates what we have learned in conditional logic and really helped me practice.
It would be great if there was more complicated versions of this to practice with, especially ones with context like a LR question. I found my diagrams get really messy when I have to deal with prarsing entire paragraphs. I would love a skill builder that focuses on pulling out the logic of complex statements, like the LR question stems.
Q4: Commercial airline pilots (A) are required to have the ability (B) to perform the “Lazy Eight” maneuver.
A majority of golden retrievers (C) are commercial airline pilots. (A)
----
A -> B
C -m-> A
therefore shouldnt it be:
some C (golden retrivers) have B (ability)
---
why is it "most before all" structure and not "other formal argument" (lesson)
i do not understand why the conclusion for #4 cannot be
commercial airline pilot -most--> enjoy flying
5/5!!!
I'm so confused...I really thought I got the hang of it but this skill builder ripped me a new one
#feedback the explanations for this skill builder are a bit confusing and hard to follow along. It's a bit discouraging after all those lessons and everything not making sense when reaching the skill builder. I don't think the lessons previous to this set me up well. Just some of my thoughts.
what the helly
I'm so confused I feel like crying in front of my computer screen. this is hard. Also, when. I was at the lessons that said to come back. I felt like the general understanding was that it was above our abilities, but this feels like I should understand it and I just don't, which is of course worse. I'm so lost. Didn't even get one right. Perhaps I Have to rewatch all these videos again. I am really having a hard time here.
I am so. lost. Like I am not understanding this at all. Would it be worth it to just move ahead and come back later when I've gone through other lessons?
this threw me for a loop
#feedback It would be helpful if the lawgic was included in the answer reveal!
Tell me if I'm doing something wrong or not getting deep enough into the use of Lawgic and breaking down these examples, but I seem to get most of these correct just based on my intuition and understanding of immediately reading the problem. I understand Lawgic and why it's useful, but sometimes it overcomplicates things for me. Should I be concerned about this?