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?
I was between B and D - I ended up choosing B because it made more sense, but when going over the video explanation I got a little confused. For D, it has group 3 indicators with "No" so technically couldn't it be flipped?? Like instead of certificate -> participant, couldn't it also be participant -> certificate because the group 3 says it could be in either order? And then if that was the case then D would be correct ..? Or is it that B is the "most" correct answer
I got it correct but got confused in the chaining process, from my chain I did process of elimination and was stuck between B and D. I chose B becuase it wasnt worded as strongly as D was with the No vs Not all. Idk if this helps anyone or how I got it, just a method to my madness.
I got the question right but in a somewhat different and more time consuming way. I ended up with the statement participants→ certificates and the statement participants ←s→ active but failed to realize that I could form a chain, which also made it more difficult for me to see the relationship between certificate and active right away. For answer choice B, I figured that since active←s→participants, then we could also say that certificates ←s→ active because certificates is a necessary condition of participants. If some of those who received community recognition certificates are not active, we can infer that not all of those who received community recognition certificates are active.
0
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.
40 comments
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?
Can somebody please explain to me why it is important to negate quantifiers?
I mean I understand the whole point of being able to quantify statements, but how does knowing how to negate quantifying statements going to benefit?
I was between B and D - I ended up choosing B because it made more sense, but when going over the video explanation I got a little confused. For D, it has group 3 indicators with "No" so technically couldn't it be flipped?? Like instead of certificate -> participant, couldn't it also be participant -> certificate because the group 3 says it could be in either order? And then if that was the case then D would be correct ..? Or is it that B is the "most" correct answer
I got it correct but got confused in the chaining process, from my chain I did process of elimination and was stuck between B and D. I chose B becuase it wasnt worded as strongly as D was with the No vs Not all. Idk if this helps anyone or how I got it, just a method to my madness.
I got the question right but in a somewhat different and more time consuming way. I ended up with the statement participants→ certificates and the statement participants ←s→
activebut failed to realize that I could form a chain, which also made it more difficult for me to see the relationship between certificate andactiveright away. For answer choice B, I figured that sinceactive←s→participants, then we could also say that certificates ←s→activebecause certificates is a necessary condition of participants. If some of those who received community recognition certificates are not active, we can infer that not all of those who received community recognition certificates are active.