In Q3 we could combine the arguments to make one long chain so I dont understand why we can not do the same with Q4? (Why we can not say pilot -> ability -m-> enjoy) Is there a rule for this, like we can only add to a chain from its start and not its end for -m-> arrows?
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.
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.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
151 comments
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?
In Q3 we could combine the arguments to make one long chain so I dont understand why we can not do the same with Q4? (Why we can not say pilot -> ability -m-> enjoy) Is there a rule for this, like we can only add to a chain from its start and not its end for -m-> arrows?
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
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