how can A be wrong if it says that ppl who pariticpated in annual spring cleanup got a certificate and then some of those ppl were not active in artisitc circle. Doesnt that logically imply that some could have gone and thus got a certfificate? I get that some can mean all, but how could a sentnece reading 'at least some' indicate anything but that some did show up?
this made me feel like a genius lol. I just ignored everything but the lawgic and got it right and under the recommended time (im ALWAYS over). yay!!!!!!!!!!!!
My first instinct was B but then I fell for D. Should've gone with my gut. Why is it that I feel as though I understand the lawgic/logic, and then when I get to an LSAT question, I feel like I can't understand wtf they are saying anymore? Maybe I just need to practice more difficult questions?
Each of the many A -> B
C-> A<s>/D
That's a lot of chained logic. It seems so simple now that I see it laid out that way but when I'm working the question I feel like the introduction of the fourth element and the ordering of things is confusing me. Am I not practicing advanced enough logic chains to be able to intuitively get it? Do I need to slow down and answer more questions slowly before I start recognizing them quickly?
I got the first part of diagramming correct, however, instead of:
/active <-s-> certificate
I had:
/active -> certificate
because based on the logic & scenario, it make sense that everyone who wasn't active in the artistic circle definitely got a certificate. Can someone tell me why this is wrong?
I got this correct but am really struggling on timing. Took me around 3 minutes before I submitted my answer with full confidence. Does anyone have any advice for how to save time or improve on time?
I got the answer right but im not sure the way I got there is correct. Because answer B starts with "Not" I applied the Negate the necessary rule, and negated town's artistic circle, then because we learned that "All" implies "some" I changed it into a some statement but im not sure if this line of thinking is correct
I translated the statements into Lawgic correctly and narrowed it down to B and C. But I chose C because I didnt trust my ability to explain why B was correct -_-
are we supposed to treat "some" or any of the other quantifiers as a condition statement indicator? I messed up this question because i was thrown off by the "because the spring cleanup took place at the same time as the downtown arts fair" part of the question and i totally missed the some relationship. Thanks
I found myself having a hard time with some of the questions that required me to translate to lawgic throughout this section. However, I found this specific question to be easy. Should I spend a ton of time going back and reviewing this section?
1
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!
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.
47 comments
The main takeaway from every lesson is -- every word is important!
I got it correct !!!!
how can A be wrong if it says that ppl who pariticpated in annual spring cleanup got a certificate and then some of those ppl were not active in artisitc circle. Doesnt that logically imply that some could have gone and thus got a certfificate? I get that some can mean all, but how could a sentnece reading 'at least some' indicate anything but that some did show up?
got it correct
I’m still trying to understand why “each of the many” does not mean “some”? I saw many and immediately made it “some”.
this made me feel like a genius lol. I just ignored everything but the lawgic and got it right and under the recommended time (im ALWAYS over). yay!!!!!!!!!!!!
commenting to come back to when I am feeling like I can't do this... first one I got right and felt confident on ! It is possible!
wauw......i got it right! normally i suck at must be true/assumption questions so this feels amazing.
How can i have my overall study plan include more of these types of questions that incorporate actual LSAT questions?
Selected B first but then selected A in Blind Review. Gotta not second guess myself.
My first instinct was B but then I fell for D. Should've gone with my gut. Why is it that I feel as though I understand the lawgic/logic, and then when I get to an LSAT question, I feel like I can't understand wtf they are saying anymore? Maybe I just need to practice more difficult questions?
Each of the many A -> B
C-> A<s>/D
That's a lot of chained logic. It seems so simple now that I see it laid out that way but when I'm working the question I feel like the introduction of the fourth element and the ordering of things is confusing me. Am I not practicing advanced enough logic chains to be able to intuitively get it? Do I need to slow down and answer more questions slowly before I start recognizing them quickly?
#help
can you say that /active <-s-> participant -> certificate can be equal to /certificate -> /participant <-s-> active?
Got it right but as usual it took way too much time
I got the first part of diagramming correct, however, instead of:
/active <-s-> certificate
I had:
/active -> certificate
because based on the logic & scenario, it make sense that everyone who wasn't active in the artistic circle definitely got a certificate. Can someone tell me why this is wrong?
I got it right but took forever. Will drilling/more practice be the main thing that improves speed?
To clarify, the only manipulation that can be done with <-s-> is just flipping the two ideas?
As in:
/art <-s-> participant =
participant <-s-> /art
I can't, for example, do:
It is not the case that some participants are not active in art = All participants are active in art =
participant -> active
Could someone explain the reasoning behind this?
I got this correct but am really struggling on timing. Took me around 3 minutes before I submitted my answer with full confidence. Does anyone have any advice for how to save time or improve on time?
At least I got it in blind review...
I got the answer right but im not sure the way I got there is correct. Because answer B starts with "Not" I applied the Negate the necessary rule, and negated town's artistic circle, then because we learned that "All" implies "some" I changed it into a some statement but im not sure if this line of thinking is correct
What if the first premise was "participant ←s→ certificate"? Can you still conclude "/active ←s→ certificate"?
I got this right on a drill before taking this course. after taking the lessons I got it wrong and took more time
I mistakenly translated "many" as some instead of all. I noticed my error in blind review and got the correct answer.
I translated the statements into Lawgic correctly and narrowed it down to B and C. But I chose C because I didnt trust my ability to explain why B was correct -_-
are we supposed to treat "some" or any of the other quantifiers as a condition statement indicator? I messed up this question because i was thrown off by the "because the spring cleanup took place at the same time as the downtown arts fair" part of the question and i totally missed the some relationship. Thanks
I was between A and B. I realized that the way B was written didn't make sense at first. The "Not All" confused me
I found myself having a hard time with some of the questions that required me to translate to lawgic throughout this section. However, I found this specific question to be easy. Should I spend a ton of time going back and reviewing this section?