I kept getting type #4 of question wrong, so sharing in case it helps someone:
I was focusing on this:
→ since “potions in the witch’s hut” are a subset of “all potions,” and every potion has some beneficial effects, then potions in the hut also have some benefits.
That’s actually correct but it’s not the key inference the question is testing.
What we should be thinking is:
→ “Most A are B” guarantees that some A are B → “All A are C” means those same A are also C
So combining: Some potions in the witch’s hut are poisonous, and those same potions have beneficial effects.
Conclusion: → Some things are BOTH poisonous AND have beneficial effects.
The shift that helped me: Don’t stop at subset reasoning. Look for the overlap that satisfies both statements.
@Disney It's not that the adjective can be dropped, it's about understanding that it doesn't make a difference to the kind of inference we can make. Whether you keep "electric" in the diagram doesn't change anything about how we understand the relationship between the two statements. You can't treat diagramming as simply an exercise in drawing the given words exactly as they appear. You want to think about the underlying concepts, too.
If all trucks inspire awe in children, then every single truck, no matter what specific kind it is, inspires awe in children.
That means electric trucks inspire awe, gas trucks, hybrid trucks, orange trucks, red trucks, blue trucks, etc. So if you learn that there's some kind of truck -- no matter what specific kind -- that's politically unpopular, then you know some trucks that are politically unpopular also inspire awe in children. And we can also conclude that some vehicles or things that are politically unpopular also inspire awe in children (because we know at least some trucks have those qualities).
The skill builder before this said I couldn't group (or assume) "Commerical Pilots" and, "people who fly" together. But for Q#1, I am now allowed to assume and group together, "electric trucks" and "all trucks"? Someone please help lol.
@Edbnapa "Electric trucks" is a subset of all trucks. In other words, if it's an electric truck, it's also a truck. We can make a valid inference due to this fact.
Can we say the same of commercial pilots and people who fly? No. Military pilots, for example, can fly in fighter jets but not commercial aircraft.
I’m feeling really lost. I don’t understand what’s going on with all of this. There are so many frameworks and complicated methods that they’re starting to take away my intuition instead of helping it.
Since week one, even though I understand the material and do fairly well on the skill builders, many of the methods have felt more detrimental than beneficial. I’m trying to stick with the course in the hope that things will eventually click, but that hasn’t happened yet.
It also makes me feel discouraged when I think about the time and resources I’ve invested so far. The lessons say they will take a certain amount of time, but they don’t. I find myself dwelling on the video explanations, yet they still don’t make much sense to me. The entire module on conditionals, in particular, is very confusing.
@EduardoRios Treat this like learning a new language. How long have you been studying? If it's just been a few weeks, then that's nowhere near long enough for this stuff to feel comfortable. It can take months. There's a learning curve, and you're probably still in the beginning part of that.
Separately, depending on where you're starting and your score goals, it's OK to skip past this module and come back later. (The lower your starting score the lower your score goal, the less important mastery of tough conditional logic is.) Many would benefit from focusing on Arguments and Grammar and saving conditionals/intersecting sets for much later. You will want to come back eventually though.
Also, don't think you need to feel 100% comfortable with every lesson before you move on. It's OK to feel a bit confused and to bookmark lessons to come back to.
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?
Number 5 got me based on the wording. I was focused on potions and not the difference between potions and potions in the witch's hut. Reading carefully moving forward for sure!
So, my confusion was not understanding that question #5, as explained in the video, is really comparing potions to all things that are poisonous and all things that have beneficial effects, not comparing all potions to poisonous potions and things that have beneficial effects. So, potions in witch's hut -m- poisonous things and potions -m- beneficial things allows you to infer poisonous things -s- beneficial things.
@Sofialloydstill That's technically a valid conclusion, but it's not really the aim of this exercise. The inference you make doesn't actually involve the connection between both statements. It's really just based on the second. We know "all" trucks inspire awe in children. So you can say all red trucks inspire awe, all blue trucks, all best-selling trucks, etc. The idea that "all unpopular electric trucks inspire awe in children" is already proven by the idea that all trucks inspire awe in children.
When you draw a conclusion that still keeps reference to the underlying entity of "trucks," that's not wrong. But it's also not too difficult to make that kind of conclusion.
What's more difficult is to recognize conclusions we can draw that don't specifically refer to "electric" (or even those that don't specifically refer to "truck."):
Some politically unpopular vehicles inspire awe in children.
Some politically unpopular things inspire awe in children.
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 Q4, we have a new variation of "Most Before All." We have A on both sides (sufficient), thus we will combine the two necessary conditions with a "some" relationship.
New Variation:
A --m--> B
A --> C
--------------
B <--s--> C
Normal:
A --m--> B
B --> C
-------------
A --m--> C
For Q5, we have a new variation of "Two Split Mosts." The reason the new variation has an invalid conclusion is the other "A*" is too broad--we cannot conclude that B and C have a "some" relationship.
i always find it hard to 1) chain thing. I write them out in lawgic and then i get confused on how/what to chain and in what order 2) i also find it hard to draw conclusion from what is chained. anyone else? tips? <3
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?
@Shannell_E'llan In #4, the second statement says "Every potion has some beneficial effects." This applies to every potion in the world whether it's in the witch's hut or not. The explanation mentions context only to explain why the diagram uses "potion in witch's hut -> some beneficial effects" rather than "potion --> some beneficial effects". But that doesn't mean context changes the meaning of the sentence; the context simply helps show why we chose to diagram the statement in a particular way. We could have diagrammed the second statement "potion --> some beneficial effects" and we'd still understand that this statement applies to all potions everywhere, including those in the witch's hut.
In #5, "Most potions have some beneficial effects" means over half of potions have some beneficial effects. But that means up to 49% don't have beneficial effects. We don't know whether the potions in the witch's hut are among the potions that have beneficial effects.
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"?
@DrewAlanGoss-Hager One is a subset of the other. But if you know some electric trucks are politically unpopular, doesn't that imply some "trucks" are politically unpopular? That's why we can infer that some politicallly unpopular trucks inspire awe in children.
And, if all trucks inspire awe in children, doesn't that imply all electric trucks inspire awe in children? So this is another path by which we can get to the conclusion that some trucks that are politically unpopular inspire awe in children.
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.
102 comments
In question 1: does it matter the Electric Truck vs Truck.
Not all trucks are electric so I said no valid ccl
These are getting to me just like Negating Quantifiers
I kept getting type #4 of question wrong, so sharing in case it helps someone:
I was focusing on this:
→ since “potions in the witch’s hut” are a subset of “all potions,” and every potion has some beneficial effects, then potions in the hut also have some benefits.
That’s actually correct but it’s not the key inference the question is testing.
What we should be thinking is:
→ “Most A are B” guarantees that some A are B → “All A are C” means those same A are also C
So combining: Some potions in the witch’s hut are poisonous, and those same potions have beneficial effects.
Conclusion: → Some things are BOTH poisonous AND have beneficial effects.
The shift that helped me: Don’t stop at subset reasoning. Look for the overlap that satisfies both statements.
question isnt making sense, it should be a most before all shouldnt it
I do not really understand question #4. This looks like a Most Before All argument. Why does the conclusion have 'some' and not 'most'?
the electric in #1 is what got me; when is it reasonable to assume that the adjective can be dropped?
@Disney It's not that the adjective can be dropped, it's about understanding that it doesn't make a difference to the kind of inference we can make. Whether you keep "electric" in the diagram doesn't change anything about how we understand the relationship between the two statements. You can't treat diagramming as simply an exercise in drawing the given words exactly as they appear. You want to think about the underlying concepts, too.
If all trucks inspire awe in children, then every single truck, no matter what specific kind it is, inspires awe in children.
That means electric trucks inspire awe, gas trucks, hybrid trucks, orange trucks, red trucks, blue trucks, etc. So if you learn that there's some kind of truck -- no matter what specific kind -- that's politically unpopular, then you know some trucks that are politically unpopular also inspire awe in children. And we can also conclude that some vehicles or things that are politically unpopular also inspire awe in children (because we know at least some trucks have those qualities).
@Kevin_Lin this explanation helps a lot. Thank you!
Wait I'm confused!!
The skill builder before this said I couldn't group (or assume) "Commerical Pilots" and, "people who fly" together. But for Q#1, I am now allowed to assume and group together, "electric trucks" and "all trucks"? Someone please help lol.
@Edbnapa "Electric trucks" is a subset of all trucks. In other words, if it's an electric truck, it's also a truck. We can make a valid inference due to this fact.
Can we say the same of commercial pilots and people who fly? No. Military pilots, for example, can fly in fighter jets but not commercial aircraft.
I’m feeling really lost. I don’t understand what’s going on with all of this. There are so many frameworks and complicated methods that they’re starting to take away my intuition instead of helping it.
Since week one, even though I understand the material and do fairly well on the skill builders, many of the methods have felt more detrimental than beneficial. I’m trying to stick with the course in the hope that things will eventually click, but that hasn’t happened yet.
It also makes me feel discouraged when I think about the time and resources I’ve invested so far. The lessons say they will take a certain amount of time, but they don’t. I find myself dwelling on the video explanations, yet they still don’t make much sense to me. The entire module on conditionals, in particular, is very confusing.
Please help!
Any suggestions @Kevin_Lin?
Thank you!!!
@EduardoRios Treat this like learning a new language. How long have you been studying? If it's just been a few weeks, then that's nowhere near long enough for this stuff to feel comfortable. It can take months. There's a learning curve, and you're probably still in the beginning part of that.
Separately, depending on where you're starting and your score goals, it's OK to skip past this module and come back later. (The lower your starting score the lower your score goal, the less important mastery of tough conditional logic is.) Many would benefit from focusing on Arguments and Grammar and saving conditionals/intersecting sets for much later. You will want to come back eventually though.
Also, don't think you need to feel 100% comfortable with every lesson before you move on. It's OK to feel a bit confused and to bookmark lessons to come back to.
This is really cool, starting to pick up on some patterns as well.
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 have to remind myself that these groups don't consist of the whole population. It is a group with a designated number of people in it.
Number 5 got me based on the wording. I was focused on potions and not the difference between potions and potions in the witch's hut. Reading carefully moving forward for sure!
@ChandaM Totally did the same!!
So, my confusion was not understanding that question #5, as explained in the video, is really comparing potions to all things that are poisonous and all things that have beneficial effects, not comparing all potions to poisonous potions and things that have beneficial effects. So, potions in witch's hut -m- poisonous things and potions -m- beneficial things allows you to infer poisonous things -s- beneficial things.
noo I got stuck inside the hut for #5
If I concluded on Question one that all unpopular electric trucks inspire awe in children, is that still right?
@Sofialloydstill That's technically a valid conclusion, but it's not really the aim of this exercise. The inference you make doesn't actually involve the connection between both statements. It's really just based on the second. We know "all" trucks inspire awe in children. So you can say all red trucks inspire awe, all blue trucks, all best-selling trucks, etc. The idea that "all unpopular electric trucks inspire awe in children" is already proven by the idea that all trucks inspire awe in children.
When you draw a conclusion that still keeps reference to the underlying entity of "trucks," that's not wrong. But it's also not too difficult to make that kind of conclusion.
What's more difficult is to recognize conclusions we can draw that don't specifically refer to "electric" (or even those that don't specifically refer to "truck."):
Some politically unpopular vehicles inspire awe in children.
Some politically unpopular things inspire awe in children.
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.
@KelechiChukwuemeka 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!
For Q4, we have a new variation of "Most Before All." We have A on both sides (sufficient), thus we will combine the two necessary conditions with a "some" relationship.
New Variation:
A --m--> B
A --> C
--------------
B <--s--> C
Normal:
A --m--> B
B --> C
-------------
A --m--> C
For Q5, we have a new variation of "Two Split Mosts." The reason the new variation has an invalid conclusion is the other "A*" is too broad--we cannot conclude that B and C have a "some" relationship.
New Variation:
A --m--> B
A* --m--> C
---------------
Invalid
Normal:
A --m--> B
A --m--> C
--------------
B <--s--> C
i always find it hard to 1) chain thing. I write them out in lawgic and then i get confused on how/what to chain and in what order 2) i also find it hard to draw conclusion from what is chained. anyone else? tips? <3
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?
@Shannell_E'llan In #4, the second statement says "Every potion has some beneficial effects." This applies to every potion in the world whether it's in the witch's hut or not. The explanation mentions context only to explain why the diagram uses "potion in witch's hut -> some beneficial effects" rather than "potion --> some beneficial effects". But that doesn't mean context changes the meaning of the sentence; the context simply helps show why we chose to diagram the statement in a particular way. We could have diagrammed the second statement "potion --> some beneficial effects" and we'd still understand that this statement applies to all potions everywhere, including those in the witch's hut.
In #5, "Most potions have some beneficial effects" means over half of potions have some beneficial effects. But that means up to 49% don't have beneficial effects. We don't know whether the potions in the witch's hut are among the potions that have beneficial effects.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you so much for explaining. After watching the video, it helped more. I came to the comment section prematurely lol.
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.
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.
@MeganHek
All cats are cute.
Most cats hate dogs.
Doesn't this prove that there at least some animals that are both cute and hate dogs?
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"?
@DrewAlanGoss-Hager One is a subset of the other. But if you know some electric trucks are politically unpopular, doesn't that imply some "trucks" are politically unpopular? That's why we can infer that some politicallly unpopular trucks inspire awe in children.
And, if all trucks inspire awe in children, doesn't that imply all electric trucks inspire awe in children? So this is another path by which we can get to the conclusion that some trucks that are politically unpopular inspire awe in children.
@Kevin_Lin Not sure why this was downvoted. Is there an error in the comment above?