for #3 is majority of golden retrievers are able to perform "lazy eight" maneuver, the same as golden retrievers that are pilots can perform lazy eight maneuver? or would that be wrong?
I feel like I got a 5/5 but what's actually being asked for these questions is always kind of vague and confusing for me honestly. I always get them 80% correct or 100% in a garbled way
@Sierraaghazadeh You could say cats, too. It's just that it's also true that some things in the world that attack their owners live in a loving home. And that way of phrasing an inference is often harder for people spot.
Omg.. I was stuck on Q4 for at least 30 minutes trying to figure out why 「Commerical airline pilots - m -> enjoy flying」is wrong. And, just maybe, I cracked the code. This worked for me... kinda.
So, let's use a different example to tackle this question.
Premise 1: All students in Mr. ThisQuestionPissedMeOff's (Mr. TQPMO) class are on the school bus.
Premise 2: Most people on the school bus have brown hair.
Can we validly make the argument that Most people in Mr. TQPMO's class have brown hair?
The answer is NO. Why?
Let's just say that there is only 10 students in Mr. TQPMO's class and there is around 50 students on the school bus.
We know that most of the students on the school bus have brown hair, so more than half of the students have brown hair.
26 - Brown / 24 - Not Brown
Can we conclude that all of Mr. TQPMO's students have Brown Hair?
No! There is no way of knowing. For all we know, all 10 of Mr. TQPMO's students could have hair that's NOT brown.
I know this example is exactly like the one given, but I just couldn't figure it out for the longest time until I used a really easy example like this to finally understand the one given.
The only thing I got confused, like everyone else was Q4. I thought it would be " the ability to perform the Light Eight -m-> enjoys flying" I guess I was wrong. But can someone explain it to me?
@marikitten03 It is, but "able to perform "Lazy Eight" is the necessary condition of the first statement, which means the logical relationship in question 4 doesn't match the "most before all" inference
@Arsalan06 There is no real way to infer that some pilots enjoy flying. Since there is also the chance that no pilots enjoy flying. Maybe everyone except pilots enjoys flying.
What I've been taking away from these is that if we can't say for sure that something is valid, its probably invalid. And since this stimulus implies that there is a chance that pilots may not fall into the group (the word most), then we cant say that its valid. Most means that some don't, which could include all pilots.
For #5, is it incorrect for me to have answered "some cats who fantasize about attacking their owners live in a loving home," rather than "some things who live....?" Might be overthinking it, but could that kind of assumption put me in danger of misunderstanding an LSAT question?
I have been having some difficulty diagramming "some" and "more" quantifiers. I am not sure if visually it is not clicking for me. I end up wanting to place the -s- before instead of after the subject. I have not had difficulty visualizing when it comes to the conditional claims and the -> or <->. Intuitively, I have still been getting the questions correct by regularly inferring from the text. Does anyone have any suggestions for this or has anyone also struggled to visually understand from the symbols?
q4 I found a bit tricky -- I think wrapping my head around the fact that there isn't an "only" in front of comm pilots are required to have the abiitiy would help with distinguishing this factor
We do not know if cats and dogs overlap in the overall superset of liking cat trees (perhaps rabbits like them as well and the superset is quite big), we cannot validly conclude some dogs are cats.
(Realistically speaking, do not take the first premise to be true. Some cats much prefer cardboard boxes...And on another matter, we cannot validly conclude that there is no possibility of dogs being cats in this example!)
I'm still not understanding why comm pilot -> ability and ability -m-> enjoy flying cannot become the valid conclusion of comm pilot -> enjoy flying (linking ability together) in Q4. Could someone explain?
@jennawiese The only way that makes sense to me is that the most chain has to start first, hence "most before all". So "abilty -m-> enjoy flying" can only be linked with something that starts with enjoy flying, which the other condition "pilot -> abilty" does not.
In translation, "most before all" is valid, but "all before most" does not have to be valid.
This is what I took from that example, but anyone correct me if I am wrong please!
Does anyone know if the takeaway below from question #4 is correct?
From the lessons, formal argument #5 is "Most before All". We cannot make a valid conclusion from question #4 because the premises written lawgically are actually "All before Most". We can only draw a conclusion when the "most" arrow comes before the "all" arrow, not the other way around.
Would q4 only be valid if it had said People who are commercial airline pilots... Most people who can perform..., then couldn't you make a valid conclusion?
@Oblivion I made the same error. Yes, I think that's right -- if the second statement had said "commercial airline pilots" instead of people, you could draw the conclusion that commercial airline pilots -m> enjoy flying.
167 comments
I confused the phrase "over half" as "under half" so I got the last question wrong.
4/5. I got confused on q4, but i think i get it now
for #3 is majority of golden retrievers are able to perform "lazy eight" maneuver, the same as golden retrievers that are pilots can perform lazy eight maneuver? or would that be wrong?
Makes sense, Thank God
I feel like I got a 5/5 but what's actually being asked for these questions is always kind of vague and confusing for me honestly. I always get them 80% correct or 100% in a garbled way
for number 5, why do you say "some things" instead of "some cats" for the conclusion?
@Sierraaghazadeh You could say cats, too. It's just that it's also true that some things in the world that attack their owners live in a loving home. And that way of phrasing an inference is often harder for people spot.
Omg.. I was stuck on Q4 for at least 30 minutes trying to figure out why 「Commerical airline pilots - m -> enjoy flying」is wrong. And, just maybe, I cracked the code. This worked for me... kinda.
So, let's use a different example to tackle this question.
Premise 1: All students in Mr. ThisQuestionPissedMeOff's (Mr. TQPMO) class are on the school bus.
Premise 2: Most people on the school bus have brown hair.
Can we validly make the argument that Most people in Mr. TQPMO's class have brown hair?
The answer is NO. Why?
Let's just say that there is only 10 students in Mr. TQPMO's class and there is around 50 students on the school bus.
We know that most of the students on the school bus have brown hair, so more than half of the students have brown hair.
26 - Brown / 24 - Not Brown
Can we conclude that all of Mr. TQPMO's students have Brown Hair?
No! There is no way of knowing. For all we know, all 10 of Mr. TQPMO's students could have hair that's NOT brown.
I know this example is exactly like the one given, but I just couldn't figure it out for the longest time until I used a really easy example like this to finally understand the one given.
@MinjunJin No, this was actually the perfect example. Before I read the entirety of it, I was talking it out loud and our explanations were the same.
Thank you!
@MinjunJin if you still want the explanation @marikitten03
@MinjunJin this helped so much, thank you
The only thing I got confused, like everyone else was Q4. I thought it would be " the ability to perform the Light Eight -m-> enjoys flying" I guess I was wrong. But can someone explain it to me?
@marikitten03 ? you just restated the second premise so ofcourse it is valid. but its not a new conclusion. just remember most BEFORE all
@marikitten03 It is, but "able to perform "Lazy Eight" is the necessary condition of the first statement, which means the logical relationship in question 4 doesn't match the "most before all" inference
For Q4 why is it not that some pilots enjoy flying?
@Arsalan06 There is no real way to infer that some pilots enjoy flying. Since there is also the chance that no pilots enjoy flying. Maybe everyone except pilots enjoys flying.
What I've been taking away from these is that if we can't say for sure that something is valid, its probably invalid. And since this stimulus implies that there is a chance that pilots may not fall into the group (the word most), then we cant say that its valid. Most means that some don't, which could include all pilots.
@Arsalan06 this tripped me up too. There's an explanation by MinjunJin above that explains it well
this seems to be one of the (few) lessons i have been able to do well on intuitively!
Why can't the right answer for Q4 be "some" persons who enjoy flying are commercial pilots
Is it because commercial airline pilots and "people" are technically not in the same circle with lawgic?
is it fair to say that “most” relationships can safely connect on the left side of a conditional chain, but not on the right side?
Q4 was the only one that really stumped me after finding out the answer
Q4. I assumed that some pilots enjoy flying....
For #5, is it incorrect for me to have answered "some cats who fantasize about attacking their owners live in a loving home," rather than "some things who live....?" Might be overthinking it, but could that kind of assumption put me in danger of misunderstanding an LSAT question?
@hajmcl95 i was wondering the exact same thing
I have been having some difficulty diagramming "some" and "more" quantifiers. I am not sure if visually it is not clicking for me. I end up wanting to place the -s- before instead of after the subject. I have not had difficulty visualizing when it comes to the conditional claims and the -> or <->. Intuitively, I have still been getting the questions correct by regularly inferring from the text. Does anyone have any suggestions for this or has anyone also struggled to visually understand from the symbols?
q4 I found a bit tricky -- I think wrapping my head around the fact that there isn't an "only" in front of comm pilots are required to have the abiitiy would help with distinguishing this factor
@anamat Same here. I think I assumed that Lazy Eight was exclusive to commercial airline pilots rather than it just being a requirement for them.
Another version of question 2:
All cats like cat trees.
Some dogs like cat trees.
We do not know if cats and dogs overlap in the overall superset of liking cat trees (perhaps rabbits like them as well and the superset is quite big), we cannot validly conclude some dogs are cats.
(Realistically speaking, do not take the first premise to be true. Some cats much prefer cardboard boxes...And on another matter, we cannot validly conclude that there is no possibility of dogs being cats in this example!)
For Q4 I thought "just because pilots are required to be able doesn't mean they are able." Overthinking I guess.
I'm still not understanding why comm pilot -> ability and ability -m-> enjoy flying cannot become the valid conclusion of comm pilot -> enjoy flying (linking ability together) in Q4. Could someone explain?
@jennawiese The only way that makes sense to me is that the most chain has to start first, hence "most before all". So "abilty -m-> enjoy flying" can only be linked with something that starts with enjoy flying, which the other condition "pilot -> abilty" does not.
In translation, "most before all" is valid, but "all before most" does not have to be valid.
This is what I took from that example, but anyone correct me if I am wrong please!
For Question 1, why does it is say " people" instead of "surgeons"?
Shouldn't it be "some surgeons who enjoy the sight of blood are highly compensated" ?
I am not sure what I am missing.
Does anyone know if the takeaway below from question #4 is correct?
From the lessons, formal argument #5 is "Most before All". We cannot make a valid conclusion from question #4 because the premises written lawgically are actually "All before Most". We can only draw a conclusion when the "most" arrow comes before the "all" arrow, not the other way around.
@Lexxe So turns out this is true but there's a lesson down the line stating it explicitly lol
Would q4 only be valid if it had said People who are commercial airline pilots... Most people who can perform..., then couldn't you make a valid conclusion?
@Oblivion I made the same error. Yes, I think that's right -- if the second statement had said "commercial airline pilots" instead of people, you could draw the conclusion that commercial airline pilots -m> enjoy flying.
tears of joy as i got most right when i was in the trenches in prior lessons but #5 did get me
2 of these questions deadass made me angry when I saw the answers
@besrawi ok im chill now that he explained it