a little confused on question 5 because couldn't you also infer that some of the potions are beneficial? the explanation didnt make any sense because on the flip side you can also draw a reasonable and valid inference for not all the witches stuff being poisonous?
@weaveeth000 no because the point is that you don't have enough information, so none of the inferences you can draw are "must be true" or valid. If you look back to the explanation in the professional athletes question the same reason applies: sure most of the potions in the witch's hut are poisonous but even if that's 51/100 potions in her hut, we don't know for sure that she has 51% or more of all possible potions that have some beneficial effects. All of her "most poisonous" potions could come from the 49% of all the possible potions that don't have any poisonous effects. But because it's a possibility and not a fact of the claims we are given, we don't have the information to draw that conclusion validly.
And then go back to 4. Question 4 tells you that every potion has some beneficial effects. That right there is a rule that you can apply to all the potions that have ever existed and will exist, including the ones in the witch's hut, which is why you can draw a conclusion from the two statements in Q4. The claims put them in a logical relationship where there is overlap we can make inferences from.
Another thing with your question that I want to address that feel like nitpicking but are important details:
it's not that the potions are beneficial but they have some beneficial effects
You can't draw an inference because there's nothing connecting the two statements besides that they both talk about potions. There is no common trait that links them together and draws them into a Venn diagram situation.
Just a general note on inferences: any time that you feel like you can possibly draw two opposing inferences (meaning it could go either way), then you don't have a "must be true" inference to draw and you are going to be relying on assumptions to make your inference, rather than relying on the logical relationship.
I hope this helps! and please anyone, if I said something wrong correct me. I feel like answering these peer questions helps me think through and solidify my own reasoning! We got this!
In the explanation for #1, the phrasing "And, since “some” statements are reversible, we also know that some things that inspire awe in children are politically unpopular." is really confusing me.
I totally understand "some" statements are reversible, however when it appears in a chain that also has a solid arrow, I find it hard to reverse the statement...
unpopular ←s→ trucks → inspire awe in children
... Reading this, it feels wrong to go backwards on the arrow between "trucks" and "inspire awe in children", since that arrow doesn't go both ways. Maybe it's because of all the sufficienty-necessity drills, but I don't get how we are now able to move against the arrow -- can someone please explain how I'm getting this mixed up?
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.
@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 :)
@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.
111 comments
This one was more confusing than any previous ones
a little confused on question 5 because couldn't you also infer that some of the potions are beneficial? the explanation didnt make any sense because on the flip side you can also draw a reasonable and valid inference for not all the witches stuff being poisonous?
@weaveeth000 no because the point is that you don't have enough information, so none of the inferences you can draw are "must be true" or valid. If you look back to the explanation in the professional athletes question the same reason applies: sure most of the potions in the witch's hut are poisonous but even if that's 51/100 potions in her hut, we don't know for sure that she has 51% or more of all possible potions that have some beneficial effects. All of her "most poisonous" potions could come from the 49% of all the possible potions that don't have any poisonous effects. But because it's a possibility and not a fact of the claims we are given, we don't have the information to draw that conclusion validly.
And then go back to 4. Question 4 tells you that every potion has some beneficial effects. That right there is a rule that you can apply to all the potions that have ever existed and will exist, including the ones in the witch's hut, which is why you can draw a conclusion from the two statements in Q4. The claims put them in a logical relationship where there is overlap we can make inferences from.
Another thing with your question that I want to address that feel like nitpicking but are important details:
it's not that the potions are beneficial but they have some beneficial effects
You can't draw an inference because there's nothing connecting the two statements besides that they both talk about potions. There is no common trait that links them together and draws them into a Venn diagram situation.
Just a general note on inferences: any time that you feel like you can possibly draw two opposing inferences (meaning it could go either way), then you don't have a "must be true" inference to draw and you are going to be relying on assumptions to make your inference, rather than relying on the logical relationship.
I hope this helps! and please anyone, if I said something wrong correct me. I feel like answering these peer questions helps me think through and solidify my own reasoning! We got this!
We can only draw a valid conclusion from "all and most" or "all and some"?
In the explanation for #1, the phrasing "And, since “some” statements are reversible, we also know that some things that inspire awe in children are politically unpopular." is really confusing me.
I totally understand "some" statements are reversible, however when it appears in a chain that also has a solid arrow, I find it hard to reverse the statement...
unpopular ←s→ trucks → inspire awe in children
... Reading this, it feels wrong to go backwards on the arrow between "trucks" and "inspire awe in children", since that arrow doesn't go both ways. Maybe it's because of all the sufficienty-necessity drills, but I don't get how we are now able to move against the arrow -- can someone please explain how I'm getting this mixed up?
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'?
@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! :)
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!
@Chanda.m 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.
@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!
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.