i think if there was more practice directly after each lesson, rather than just dumping these at the end after multiple consecutive lessons, the content would sink in better.
The last few lessons would be much easier to absorb if there were videos, I am finding myself re-reading and re-doing these skill builders and it is taking a significantly longer amount of time than it would if there had been videos to help introduce these topics. #feedback
Did I miss a video?? When did they explain that 'some' conclusions/claims can be drawn from conclusions on top of each other in Lawgic? I just don't know how that make sense logically or where I missed a step.
When one is first learning, as in these lessons, to not define every step is a disservice to the learner paying for this service. I would like to see EVERY conclusion depicted explicitly to see if I am on the right track. DO the contrapostive and WRIGHT organized columns for the SOME relationships. ""Negate, some", Negate, some" is annoying, WE already know that YOU know this well. DO Better. Please. Your job is to make sure that this is CLEAR to your student.
5/5 for me. My method is very simple. I take the mathematical meaning of the qualifiers and see if the numbers the quantifiers give can fit into a 100% without an overlap.
(Some) At least 1 electric truck is unpopular. (All) 100% of trucks inspire awe in children. There is already a 100% of trucks, so even that "at least one" truck must fit into the statement. Overlap IS guaranteed, valid conclusion.
(Some) At least 1 pro athlete is extremely talented. (Some) At least 1 athlete works hard to improve their skills. We can have one of each and still have no idea what all the other athletes are doing. It might overlap, but it is not guaranted. Overlap is NOT guaranteed, no valid conclusion.
(Most) More than 50% of professional athletes are extremely talented. (Some) At least 1 professional athlete works hard to improve their skills. Can you have a situation where 51% of pros are talented and only 1 pro works hard to improve their skills? Yes. Again, they might overlap, but that overlap is NOT guaranteed, so no valid conclusion.
Similar story to Question 1
This one is tricky because in all the other questions the subjects were either the same (pro athlete and pro athlete), or one was in the superset of another (electric truck in the superset of truck).
Here, potions in the witch's hut are in the superset of ALL (100%) potions, but not necessarily MOST (>50%) of potions which is what the question asked us. This is the nuance that made Question 4 valid.
This overlap only exists of most potions in the world are in the witch's hut. Which might be true, but we cannot guarantee it. And if the overlap is NOT guaranteed, there is no valid conclusion.
Remember that we are dealing with formal logic here. Validity is binary. Validity is absolute. There is no spectrum, or gradient, or scale to validity. It is either valid or not, and to be valid you must 100% guarantee that if your premises are true, your conclusion is true (in the world of that premise). That conclusion need not be true in the real world, just in the fake world of LSAT.
Good luck to everyone wading through this incredibly annoying exam that is explicitly designed to trip you up.
For everyone who is really confused by this lesson, that's OK -- don't view this lesson as something you need to master before moving on. It's completely fine, and in fact probably even better to just move on and only come back later when you run into trouble with problems like these in LR sections or PTs. I'll just leave with 2 takeaways:
All cats are furry.
All cats are cute.
If both of those are true, doesn't that guarantee some furry things are cute? And that some cute things are furry? Yes, because we know that cats have both of those qualities. So there are at least some things in the world that are both furry and cute.
All cats are furry.
Some cats are striped.
If I accept those two statements as true, doesn't this prove that some furry things are striped? And that some striped things are furry? Yes, because I know at least one cat in the world has both of those qualities.
(If you understand the explanations above, I encourage you to just move on at this point.)
In question 4: Why don't "most" of the potions in the witches hut have beneficial effects? why only some? Isn't this a "most before all" formal argument?
I do not think I will ever understand the conclusions these statements draw. The lessons cover a lot of info and I wish there was practice after each type that we learn.
Same, I feel like having not practiced each one individually hinders me by the time I get to a skill builder where you need to have understood everything to complete it. Makes me wonder if I need to go back and review everything over again, or if I should just push through so I can get to more LSAT-ey questions then go back as needed.
yea, I am going to push through and hope there is more clarity in the other sections. Trying to finish foundations. Hopefully drilling and studying incorrect questions will prove to be more effective.
To anyone who is struggling, I had to do this section TWICE to understand. I learned that thinking it terms of the symbols can be difficult to understand, but when you think in terms of the diagrams it helps significantly. Hopefully this will help you too!
@yes-coconuts Yeah I was confused too until I watched the video. He explains that it's "some" because the conclusion he draws is that some things are both poisonous and have some benefit. You're right that it's also valid to say "most" if you're drawing your conclusion specifically about potions. His reasoning in the video for going with the more general conclusion is that the LSAT will more commonly test on that sort of interpretation. I hope that helps :)
Isn't question #4 a "Most" before "All" type? Which should conclude with A -m-> C. However, in the answer provided, it says it concludes with A <-s-> C. In the video, the premises are in line with the "Most" before "All" lesson which concluded with a "Most" statement. He does explain why it is a "Some" statement, but it is hard to conclude that without sitting for 30 mins trying to think of every aspect that was talked about in this made up hut. This is frustrating.
111 comments
I think im doing good understanding the lessons then I get to these skill builders and realize Im not lol
i think if there was more practice directly after each lesson, rather than just dumping these at the end after multiple consecutive lessons, the content would sink in better.
#feedback
@tar great idea!!! There should be a skill builder for that lesson and then maybe a larger skill builder that encompasses all lessons at the end.
The last few lessons would be much easier to absorb if there were videos, I am finding myself re-reading and re-doing these skill builders and it is taking a significantly longer amount of time than it would if there had been videos to help introduce these topics. #feedback
Did I miss a video?? When did they explain that 'some' conclusions/claims can be drawn from conclusions on top of each other in Lawgic? I just don't know how that make sense logically or where I missed a step.
When one is first learning, as in these lessons, to not define every step is a disservice to the learner paying for this service. I would like to see EVERY conclusion depicted explicitly to see if I am on the right track. DO the contrapostive and WRIGHT organized columns for the SOME relationships. ""Negate, some", Negate, some" is annoying, WE already know that YOU know this well. DO Better. Please. Your job is to make sure that this is CLEAR to your student.
5/5 for me. My method is very simple. I take the mathematical meaning of the qualifiers and see if the numbers the quantifiers give can fit into a 100% without an overlap.
(Some) At least 1 electric truck is unpopular. (All) 100% of trucks inspire awe in children. There is already a 100% of trucks, so even that "at least one" truck must fit into the statement. Overlap IS guaranteed, valid conclusion.
(Some) At least 1 pro athlete is extremely talented. (Some) At least 1 athlete works hard to improve their skills. We can have one of each and still have no idea what all the other athletes are doing. It might overlap, but it is not guaranted. Overlap is NOT guaranteed, no valid conclusion.
(Most) More than 50% of professional athletes are extremely talented. (Some) At least 1 professional athlete works hard to improve their skills. Can you have a situation where 51% of pros are talented and only 1 pro works hard to improve their skills? Yes. Again, they might overlap, but that overlap is NOT guaranteed, so no valid conclusion.
Similar story to Question 1
This one is tricky because in all the other questions the subjects were either the same (pro athlete and pro athlete), or one was in the superset of another (electric truck in the superset of truck).
Here, potions in the witch's hut are in the superset of ALL (100%) potions, but not necessarily MOST (>50%) of potions which is what the question asked us. This is the nuance that made Question 4 valid.
This overlap only exists of most potions in the world are in the witch's hut. Which might be true, but we cannot guarantee it. And if the overlap is NOT guaranteed, there is no valid conclusion.
Remember that we are dealing with formal logic here. Validity is binary. Validity is absolute. There is no spectrum, or gradient, or scale to validity. It is either valid or not, and to be valid you must 100% guarantee that if your premises are true, your conclusion is true (in the world of that premise). That conclusion need not be true in the real world, just in the fake world of LSAT.
Good luck to everyone wading through this incredibly annoying exam that is explicitly designed to trip you up.
@Lev Once you know that chances are greater than 100%, how do you know whether to use "most" or "some"?
@futurelawyerhopefully Using most or some isn't something I decide, it depends on what they actually say.
So you have to read the stem, stim and ACs to know where to use each one.
The core curriculumhas a lesson on what these words mean, I can't rememer exactly which one but its helpful!
I'm more confused than when I started.
bruh. like what are we talking about here?
samesies
For everyone who is really confused by this lesson, that's OK -- don't view this lesson as something you need to master before moving on. It's completely fine, and in fact probably even better to just move on and only come back later when you run into trouble with problems like these in LR sections or PTs. I'll just leave with 2 takeaways:
All cats are furry.
All cats are cute.
If both of those are true, doesn't that guarantee some furry things are cute? And that some cute things are furry? Yes, because we know that cats have both of those qualities. So there are at least some things in the world that are both furry and cute.
All cats are furry.
Some cats are striped.
If I accept those two statements as true, doesn't this prove that some furry things are striped? And that some striped things are furry? Yes, because I know at least one cat in the world has both of those qualities.
(If you understand the explanations above, I encourage you to just move on at this point.)
This helps a ton. Thank you!
In question 4: Why don't "most" of the potions in the witches hut have beneficial effects? why only some? Isn't this a "most before all" formal argument?
I do not think I will ever understand the conclusions these statements draw. The lessons cover a lot of info and I wish there was practice after each type that we learn.
Same, I feel like having not practiced each one individually hinders me by the time I get to a skill builder where you need to have understood everything to complete it. Makes me wonder if I need to go back and review everything over again, or if I should just push through so I can get to more LSAT-ey questions then go back as needed.
totally agree
yea, I am going to push through and hope there is more clarity in the other sections. Trying to finish foundations. Hopefully drilling and studying incorrect questions will prove to be more effective.
Ngl... I can destroy the LSAT knowing these fundamentals alone. Good job, 7Sage. #feedback
This is really cool, starting to pick up on some patterns as well.
To anyone who is struggling, I had to do this section TWICE to understand. I learned that thinking it terms of the symbols can be difficult to understand, but when you think in terms of the diagrams it helps significantly. Hopefully this will help you too!
noo I got stuck inside the hut for #5
In question 1: does it matter the Electric Truck vs Truck.
Not all trucks are electric so I said no valid ccl
I do not really understand question #4. This looks like a Most Before All argument. Why does the conclusion have 'some' and not 'most'?
@ogreen26 still confused about this
@yes-coconuts Yeah I was confused too until I watched the video. He explains that it's "some" because the conclusion he draws is that some things are both poisonous and have some benefit. You're right that it's also valid to say "most" if you're drawing your conclusion specifically about potions. His reasoning in the video for going with the more general conclusion is that the LSAT will more commonly test on that sort of interpretation. I hope that helps :)
@Lexxe thank you so much that makes sense!!
@ogreen26 No problem! :)
Isn't question #4 a "Most" before "All" type? Which should conclude with A -m-> C. However, in the answer provided, it says it concludes with A <-s-> C. In the video, the premises are in line with the "Most" before "All" lesson which concluded with a "Most" statement. He does explain why it is a "Some" statement, but it is hard to conclude that without sitting for 30 mins trying to think of every aspect that was talked about in this made up hut. This is frustrating.
Can someone please help me understand, some relationships. I am still very confused how we get to these steps.
Hey! Were you able to find a simpler method to figuring out "some" relationships?
Did not understand any of these
are there more drills to practice these anywhere? I'm always able to draw at least one conclusion, but never the others, and I'd like to improve.
Lots of people say there are more of these on Reddit!
I feel the same way
do you know what I could type in to google to find them? I've been looking and none of the examples I saw were similar to these.
These are getting to me just like Negating Quantifiers
I've been looking through comments about queston 4 to get insight. Clearly everyone else is having a similar problem as me.
You can't just tell us to use "Most before All" and then turn around and not use it. That just makes it more complicated then it needs to be.
@CMas If it helps, you can add the following as a structure to memorize:
All A are B.
Most A are C.
We can validly conclude that Some B are C.
The reason we can make this inference is the same as that underlying:
Most A are B
Most A are C
Thus, some B are C.
I love seeing things in lawgic now!! I just gotta get faster :)
#feedback I wish each answer to the questions included the diagram and the sentence structure.
We can only draw a valid conclusion from "all and most" or "all and some"?