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.
Q#2 is slightly confusing. For the reason being that I was under the impression that (<-s->) you could interchange the inputs on either side of the arrows.
Therefore with that application, Q#2's conclusion could be: some surgeons could be vampires. Right??? Obviously, that conclusion doesn't make logistical sense, but if accepting the premises as true, that's what could be drawn (right??).
Please explain why there is no conclusion drawn from that question.
@Edbnapa You are right in saying that we can draw certain conclusions based on these claims. For example, because we know that all surgeons enjoy the sight of blood we can conclude that some surgeons do.
The point of the exercise, though, is that these two claims together do combine to produce a new conclusion. The case does not say anything conclusive about vampire surgeons.
So I tripped up on question #4 and was trying to find a pattern/formula to understand this.
The chain for #4 is commercial airline pilot --> able to perform "Lazy Eight" --m--> enjoy flying.
Can I say that this is an invalid conclusion because of the structure that "most" comes after the "all" statement? Would any other chain that "most" comes after "all" also be invalid because "most" is a subset of "all"?
@JiyoonLim I think it’s because the statements aren’t linked. If one of the premises was that only airline pilots are able to perform the lazy eight, then it would be proper to infer that some airline pilots enjoy flying. But because there is no information on whether or not airline pilots make up the majority of people who can perform the maneuver they conclusion that some airline pilots enjoy flying can not be made. The amount of people who can perform it, that are not airline pilots could be the majority and there is a chance that the group who are airline pilots and the group who enjoy flying do not overlap.
ex: (P1) Most students in Prof. Snape's class can brew potions masterfully. (P2) All students who can masterfully brew potions are invited to join the Slug Club. (C) Therefore, most students in Prof. Snape's class are invited to join the Slug Club.
For Question 5, can we make the conclusion be that some things that fantasize about attacking their owners must also live in a loving home vs that some cats that fantasize about attacking their owners must also live in a loving home? Wondering since the answer explanation uses both.
Commercial airline pilots are required to have the ability to perform the “Lazy Eight” maneuver.
Most people who can perform the “Lazy Eight” maneuver enjoy flying.
Statement 1
Airline pilot -> The lazy 8
Statement 2
Lazy 8 -m-> Enjoy flying
Conclusion
No valid conclusion. But my mistake was that I thought this meant airline pilots liked to fly
Why it is not valid
What we know is that ALL airline pilots can do the Lazy 8.
We also know that MOST people who can do the lazy 8 enjoy flying
This is invalid because we have no clue if the pilots who can do the lazy 8 are part of the people who enjoy flying. Nothing here is telling us that all of those pilots who can do the lazy 8 enjoy flying. For all we know each one of those hates flying because the lazy 8 gives them a stomach ache.
Example to help understand:
This is like me telling you
All of my friends are your friends,
Most of your friends are your brothers friends
SOOOOOO, does that mean my friends are now your brothers friends too?
NOPE. We have no clue here if my friends are also friends with your brother.
For all we know I could have only 1 friend, and that friend is with you, but you have 4 friends. The 3 friends who are not my friend could be friends with your bother. Hence, my one friend is not you brothers friend. Making it invalid to say that my friends are your brothers friends
For Q3: the answer says most golden retrievers are abled - but the stimulus says required; there is a nuanced difference between being able to do something and being required to have the ability to do it.
@MateoAgudelo I understand what you're saying, in that in theory someone might be "required" to do something but not actually do it (like someone who violates a law). Let's just interpret "required" in the sense that it must be true. So if a commercial pilot is required to have the ability to do something, then it's fair to say that any commercial pilot does in fact have the ability to do the thing (because it's required for them to have that ability). This aligns with how the LSAT almost always means "required".
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?
@IvyLi2026 No, that's not wrong. It's just that since we already know "all surgeons" enjoy the sight of blood, it's not very difficult/interesting to infer that some surgeon with quality X enjoys the sight of blood. We know that some surgeons with red hair, bony elbows, etc. enjoy the sight of blood. So the LSAT would tend not to test us on the inference that some specific kind of surgeon enjoys the sight of blood.
However, what they will test us on is recognizing that there is an overlap between the qualities of "enjoy sight of blood" and "highly compensated." That overlap occurs in at least some surgeons. But it's harder for people to recognize this overlap if we just drop the word "surgeons" -- "Some people who are highly compensated enjoy the sight of blood." That's something that we can infer, but it's not as intuitive for people to understand why.
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??
@Saiaaghaty try thinking of it this way: there are 10 commercial airline pilots and 10,000 aliens who fly space ships. all 10 commercial airline pilots are required to have the ability to perform the lazy eight. what if all of the aliens are also required to have the ability to perform the lazy eight? then in total we have 10,010 pilots (both commercial and alien) who can perform the lazy eight. The second statement says that most people who can perform the lazy eight enjoy flying. that means more than half, so for our group of 10,010 than at least 5,006 of them enjoy flying.
Now, is it possible for some, most, or even all of the commercial pilots to enjoy flying? Sure. Does this logic PROVE that, without any exceptions? I would have to disagree. In our set of 10,010, it is entirely possible that if 5,006 of them enjoy flying, all 5,006 are alien pilots. There could be ZERO commercial pilots in that amount of 5,006. Therefore, no valid conclusions can be drawn!
Silly examples help to make this stuff more digestible in my opinion!! Hopefully this is helpful!
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.
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.
134 comments
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
@brandenesrawi ok im chill now that he explained it
Q#2 is slightly confusing. For the reason being that I was under the impression that (<-s->) you could interchange the inputs on either side of the arrows.
Therefore with that application, Q#2's conclusion could be: some surgeons could be vampires. Right??? Obviously, that conclusion doesn't make logistical sense, but if accepting the premises as true, that's what could be drawn (right??).
Please explain why there is no conclusion drawn from that question.
@Edbnapa You are right in saying that we can draw certain conclusions based on these claims. For example, because we know that all surgeons enjoy the sight of blood we can conclude that some surgeons do.
The point of the exercise, though, is that these two claims together do combine to produce a new conclusion. The case does not say anything conclusive about vampire surgeons.
Two split Most, or the tale of 51% :-)
So I tripped up on question #4 and was trying to find a pattern/formula to understand this.
The chain for #4 is commercial airline pilot --> able to perform "Lazy Eight" --m--> enjoy flying.
Can I say that this is an invalid conclusion because of the structure that "most" comes after the "all" statement? Would any other chain that "most" comes after "all" also be invalid because "most" is a subset of "all"?
@JiyoonLim I think it’s because the statements aren’t linked. If one of the premises was that only airline pilots are able to perform the lazy eight, then it would be proper to infer that some airline pilots enjoy flying. But because there is no information on whether or not airline pilots make up the majority of people who can perform the maneuver they conclusion that some airline pilots enjoy flying can not be made. The amount of people who can perform it, that are not airline pilots could be the majority and there is a chance that the group who are airline pilots and the group who enjoy flying do not overlap.
5/5!
I actually still don't see the connection in question 5, and the explanation doesn't really make sense to me, but whatever...
@JodiChan What about the video explanation beginning at 14:20?
@JodiChan
It's late, but 2 split most module covered this.
remind me again, what is the “most before all” argument structure:
@JodiChan
A -m-> B
B --> C
------------
A -m-> C
ex: (P1) Most students in Prof. Snape's class can brew potions masterfully. (P2) All students who can masterfully brew potions are invited to join the Slug Club. (C) Therefore, most students in Prof. Snape's class are invited to join the Slug Club.
students -m-> brew
brew --> club
students -m-> brew --> club
students -m-> club
For Question 5, can we make the conclusion be that some things that fantasize about attacking their owners must also live in a loving home vs that some cats that fantasize about attacking their owners must also live in a loving home? Wondering since the answer explanation uses both.
@caelesalad Yes, because cats are "things"!
4/5, question 4 tripped me up
How question 4 worked here.
Commercial airline pilots are required to have the ability to perform the “Lazy Eight” maneuver.
Most people who can perform the “Lazy Eight” maneuver enjoy flying.
Statement 1
Airline pilot -> The lazy 8
Statement 2
Lazy 8 -m-> Enjoy flying
Conclusion
No valid conclusion. But my mistake was that I thought this meant airline pilots liked to fly
Why it is not valid
What we know is that ALL airline pilots can do the Lazy 8.
We also know that MOST people who can do the lazy 8 enjoy flying
This is invalid because we have no clue if the pilots who can do the lazy 8 are part of the people who enjoy flying. Nothing here is telling us that all of those pilots who can do the lazy 8 enjoy flying. For all we know each one of those hates flying because the lazy 8 gives them a stomach ache.
Example to help understand:
This is like me telling you
All of my friends are your friends,
Most of your friends are your brothers friends
SOOOOOO, does that mean my friends are now your brothers friends too?
NOPE. We have no clue here if my friends are also friends with your brother.
For all we know I could have only 1 friend, and that friend is with you, but you have 4 friends. The 3 friends who are not my friend could be friends with your bother. Hence, my one friend is not you brothers friend. Making it invalid to say that my friends are your brothers friends
For Q3: the answer says most golden retrievers are abled - but the stimulus says required; there is a nuanced difference between being able to do something and being required to have the ability to do it.
@MateoAgudelo I understand what you're saying, in that in theory someone might be "required" to do something but not actually do it (like someone who violates a law). Let's just interpret "required" in the sense that it must be true. So if a commercial pilot is required to have the ability to do something, then it's fair to say that any commercial pilot does in fact have the ability to do the thing (because it's required for them to have that ability). This aligns with how the LSAT almost always means "required".
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?
@IvyLi2026 No, that's not wrong. It's just that since we already know "all surgeons" enjoy the sight of blood, it's not very difficult/interesting to infer that some surgeon with quality X enjoys the sight of blood. We know that some surgeons with red hair, bony elbows, etc. enjoy the sight of blood. So the LSAT would tend not to test us on the inference that some specific kind of surgeon enjoys the sight of blood.
However, what they will test us on is recognizing that there is an overlap between the qualities of "enjoy sight of blood" and "highly compensated." That overlap occurs in at least some surgeons. But it's harder for people to recognize this overlap if we just drop the word "surgeons" -- "Some people who are highly compensated enjoy the sight of blood." That's something that we can infer, but it's not as intuitive for people to understand why.
Could #5 also be:
Pet cats < -- s --> Living in loving home and fantasize about attacking owner?
@e.wimoine Yes, that's another valid inference from #5.
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??
@Saiaaghaty try thinking of it this way: there are 10 commercial airline pilots and 10,000 aliens who fly space ships. all 10 commercial airline pilots are required to have the ability to perform the lazy eight. what if all of the aliens are also required to have the ability to perform the lazy eight? then in total we have 10,010 pilots (both commercial and alien) who can perform the lazy eight. The second statement says that most people who can perform the lazy eight enjoy flying. that means more than half, so for our group of 10,010 than at least 5,006 of them enjoy flying.
Now, is it possible for some, most, or even all of the commercial pilots to enjoy flying? Sure. Does this logic PROVE that, without any exceptions? I would have to disagree. In our set of 10,010, it is entirely possible that if 5,006 of them enjoy flying, all 5,006 are alien pilots. There could be ZERO commercial pilots in that amount of 5,006. Therefore, no valid conclusions can be drawn!
Silly examples help to make this stuff more digestible in my opinion!! Hopefully this is helpful!
How do we know when the valid conclusion is a some or most statement?
@rjon27 When it comes to these intersecting set inferences, the ONLY situation in which we can conclude "most" is from the following structure:
Most A are B.
All B are C.
We can infer that most A are C. (And we can also infer that some A are C.)
But for other situations in which we might produce a valid inference -- some + all, most + most -- we would only be able to infer "some."
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"?
@JapjeetSuden Some pet cats 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.
@StanHolt The some or most have to start the conditional. Remember, we cannot go backwards in the chain.
"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 :)