Wait, I was so confident in my answer for question 5. I thought we were supposed to use the "Two Split Mosts".
I thought it would be helpful to assume, for context, that the second line, "Most potions have some beneficial effects," refers to the potions in the witch's hut. This one threw me all the way off.
In question 4, you said to use context when it said "every potion," now in Q5, you're saying not to use it?
In the video they lay it out as A -m -> B, A-> C and then draw the conclusion that B<-s->C. Which is only the case if it is a two split mosts, right? A -m -> B A -m -> C then B <-s-> C.
For question 1, I had an error based on the wording in the two premises. In P1, it says "electric trucks," and in P2, it says "trucks," which I infer as any kind. In the conclusion/explanation, it says this info is irrelevant, but I would examine trucks and electric trucks as inequivalent since one is a subset of the other. Maybe I am just confused. Can anyone explain why it is irrelevant to pay attention to the word "electric"?
i'm confused, why isn't the sentence "every potion has some beneficial effects"? Is it because "some" is quantifying the object of the sentence ("beneficial effects") and not the subject? do the diagramming rules only apply if the quantifier is modifying the subject of the sentence?
in other words, what do you do when there are multiple quantifiers like "every" and "some" in one sentence?
I'm confused about the diagramming of question #4. I watched the video and the diagram looks incorrect regardless of whether you choose to use the Some Before All or Most Before All structure for the diagram.
In a Most Before All argument the diagram should be as follows:
Premises:
A -m—> B
B —> C
Conclusion:
A -m—> C
In a Some Before All argument the diagram should be as follows:
Premises:
A <—s—> B
B —> C
Conclusion:
A <—s—> C
The diagram for question #4 ends up looking like this (using the Most Before All format):
Premises:
Potion in Hut -m--> Poisonous
(A) -m--> (B)
Potion in Hut --> Some Benefit
(A) --> (C)
Conclusion:
Poisonous <--s--> Beneficial
(B) <--s--> (C)
We end up with a conclusion that says
Some (Bs) are (Cs) instead of a conclusion that says some (As) are (Cs) -- which is the valid conclusion.
Can anyone #HELP me out here to understand why this is valid?
Question 4 is so yucky. Obviously, I'm going to use the Most Before All form because that's what we were just taught. How am I supposed to know that's not the relationship to focus on?
Question 5 seems like a great opportunity to apply the split most idea, but it was not a proper application because of the wording of the two statements. So, if we were talking about potions in the witch's hut in both statements, then would it be appropriate to apply the "split mosts" strategy?
Hi, is confusing using the past "Valid Argument Review" in the section from "two most" and use to resolve the Question 5. Can someone help me to explain why? Is two most but itsn't valid... idk
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.
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!
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.
What lesson did we learn about ←s→ relationships between two necessary claims deriving from the same sufficient? I just clicked through a bunch of the curric but cannot find it.
The heck is going on with question 3. It feels like I can't understand a word in english.
3
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.
75 comments
for Q4, is "there is at least one potion that is beneficial and poisonous" a valid inference?
Wait, I was so confident in my answer for question 5. I thought we were supposed to use the "Two Split Mosts".
I thought it would be helpful to assume, for context, that the second line, "Most potions have some beneficial effects," refers to the potions in the witch's hut. This one threw me all the way off.
In question 4, you said to use context when it said "every potion," now in Q5, you're saying not to use it?
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.
What am I missing on question 4?
In the video they lay it out as A -m -> B, A-> C and then draw the conclusion that B<-s->C. Which is only the case if it is a two split mosts, right? A -m -> B A -m -> C then B <-s-> C.
I didn't quite get 2 and 3 but they made sense after doing 4 and 5.
I love seeing things in lawgic now!! I just gotta get faster :)
For question 1, I had an error based on the wording in the two premises. In P1, it says "electric trucks," and in P2, it says "trucks," which I infer as any kind. In the conclusion/explanation, it says this info is irrelevant, but I would examine trucks and electric trucks as inequivalent since one is a subset of the other. Maybe I am just confused. Can anyone explain why it is irrelevant to pay attention to the word "electric"?
For Q4 I got "Most potions in the witch hut are poisonous and have some beneficial effects."
Obviously this is not what the lesson was intending, but I think it is still correct?
for #4, i diagrammed it as
potions -m-> witch's hut are poisonous
potion <-s-> beneficial effects
i'm confused, why isn't the sentence "every potion has some beneficial effects"? Is it because "some" is quantifying the object of the sentence ("beneficial effects") and not the subject? do the diagramming rules only apply if the quantifier is modifying the subject of the sentence?
in other words, what do you do when there are multiple quantifiers like "every" and "some" in one sentence?
#help
For Q4, I came up with
Potions in hut -m-> poisonous and some beneficial effects
So, yeah, I did miss the some poisonous things have some benefit.
I'm confused about the diagramming of question #4. I watched the video and the diagram looks incorrect regardless of whether you choose to use the Some Before All or Most Before All structure for the diagram.
In a Most Before All argument the diagram should be as follows:
Premises:
A -m—> B
B —> C
Conclusion:
A -m—> C
In a Some Before All argument the diagram should be as follows:
Premises:
A <—s—> B
B —> C
Conclusion:
A <—s—> C
The diagram for question #4 ends up looking like this (using the Most Before All format):
Premises:
Potion in Hut -m--> Poisonous
(A) -m--> (B)
Potion in Hut --> Some Benefit
(A) --> (C)
Conclusion:
Poisonous <--s--> Beneficial
(B) <--s--> (C)
We end up with a conclusion that says
Some (Bs) are (Cs) instead of a conclusion that says some (As) are (Cs) -- which is the valid conclusion.
Can anyone #HELP me out here to understand why this is valid?
Question 4 is so yucky. Obviously, I'm going to use the Most Before All form because that's what we were just taught. How am I supposed to know that's not the relationship to focus on?
Question 5 seems like a great opportunity to apply the split most idea, but it was not a proper application because of the wording of the two statements. So, if we were talking about potions in the witch's hut in both statements, then would it be appropriate to apply the "split mosts" strategy?
#feedback
#question
#tutor
#instructor
Hi, is confusing using the past "Valid Argument Review" in the section from "two most" and use to resolve the Question 5. Can someone help me to explain why? Is two most but itsn't valid... idk
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.
I just don't see how I could do these types of questions in the right amount of time on the LSAT. Practice, practice I guess.
Isn't question 5 have the same format as the almond question for the two most explanation, how are they different?
[This comment was deleted.]
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!
So we need at least one all statement to conclude a some statement
5/5!!!
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.
How do you know when to negate and not to negate to find “some” relations?
What lesson did we learn about ←s→ relationships between two necessary claims deriving from the same sufficient? I just clicked through a bunch of the curric but cannot find it.
The heck is going on with question 3. It feels like I can't understand a word in english.