It is true that infatuation can distract humans from their obligations. As such, LSAT takers under the spell of romantic infatuation are distracted from their studying. Over lunch, Sarah's friend group shared their frustrations over being distracted from studying for the LSAT. It must be that Sarah's friend group is under the spell of romantic infatuation.
No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery. Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor.
Here is how I went about translating it to Lawgic, tell me if I did it wrong and if so where?
1. No is a G4 Necessary condtion negation term and Unless is a group 3 Sufficent conditon negation term.
2. I picked the Unless term since it was a suff. condtion and followed the translation rule. Pick one of the 2 ideas in this case "exibit bravery" or "choosen for Griff." I picked "Eb" negated it and kept the Necc. the same giving me in
Lawgic: /EB -> /G
Counterpositive: G -> EB
idk if I did it right because the tutor got it as G-> EB when he translated it into lawgic instead of /EB -> /G
not gonna lie, the curriculum itself is what is making me confuse sufficiency for necessity. Pretty frustrating that the same lawgic translations i learned last week don’t apply half of the time and, in turn, cause me to make “the oldest mistake in the book.”
#feedback All lessons should have a corresponding video associated with them. Even a 2-3 minute video would suffice. You charge a very large monthly fee and try to disassociate yourselves from other courses and other methods of learning the material on the LSAT. If individuals only learned through reading posts resembling a blog, people might not be willing to pay a monthly subscription and would opt for much cheaper alternatives.
I'm confused on how this is an invalid argument. I know it must be so simple, but the more I read it the more I cannot distinguish it. I know bravery is necessary for Gryffindor. What is the invalid part?
“No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery. Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor”
I followed the Group 3 and Group 4 conditional indicator rules and got:
Premise: must Exhibit Bravery → to be Chosen for Gryffindor
Conclusion: all Exhibit Bravery → will be Chosen for Gryffindor
It took me a while to understand why the conclusion is invalid. I added the words "must" and "all", and also "to be" and "will be" to my lawgic translation, because it helped me see what the sentences were actually saying. The conclusion is invalid because it's claiming that anyone who's brave will be a Gryffindor (are there not brave people in the other houses?), whereas the premise is saying that to be a Gryffindor, you have to be (at least) brave. That's a big difference. My only concern is that I didn't catch this initially, and it took me some time to realize it. It would be really helpful to have a strategy to avoid getting tripped up on these kinds of questions.
What happened to all the conditional indicators we learned? There's No (Group 4) and unless (Group 3). How do we put it into lawgic?
2
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.
84 comments
Confusing Sufficiency for Necessity Example
It is true that infatuation can distract humans from their obligations. As such, LSAT takers under the spell of romantic infatuation are distracted from their studying. Over lunch, Sarah's friend group shared their frustrations over being distracted from studying for the LSAT. It must be that Sarah's friend group is under the spell of romantic infatuation.
aight imma diary my way to LSAT studying yall
No applicant will get into law school unless they take the LSAT. Therefore, an applicant who takes the LSAT, will get into law school.
I shall use this example bc I took the LSAT last year and I didn't get in :( lol
Premise: If you're in NYC, you are in the USA. (NYC -> USA)
Conclusion: Does this mean then that, if you're in the USA, you're in NYC? (i.e. USA --> NYC)
Clearly not: because being in NYC is enough for you to know (sufficient condition) that you're in the USA.
And, by the same token, being in the USA is a requirement (necessary condition) to be in NYC (i.e. you can't be in NYC without being in the USA).
To buy an older car, you must be able to drive stick. Therefore, if you can drive stick you've driven older cars.
Could someone review this example and tell me if I'm understanding it right?
#Help
No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery. Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor.
Here is how I went about translating it to Lawgic, tell me if I did it wrong and if so where?
1. No is a G4 Necessary condtion negation term and Unless is a group 3 Sufficent conditon negation term.
2. I picked the Unless term since it was a suff. condtion and followed the translation rule. Pick one of the 2 ideas in this case "exibit bravery" or "choosen for Griff." I picked "Eb" negated it and kept the Necc. the same giving me in
Lawgic: /EB -> /G
Counterpositive: G -> EB
idk if I did it right because the tutor got it as G-> EB when he translated it into lawgic instead of /EB -> /G
Where am I going wrong and how do I fix it?
to play piano you must be able to read musical notes. Therefore all who can read musical notes play piano --not valid
Loving the Harry Potter examples!
Gryffindor ----> bravery
Snape exhibits bravery.
"Snape is a Gryffindor" is confusing sufficiency for necessity.
What is a necessary condition?
What is a Sufficient condition?
To go to law school you need a college degree. Therefore all people with college degrees got o law school.
not gonna lie, the curriculum itself is what is making me confuse sufficiency for necessity. Pretty frustrating that the same lawgic translations i learned last week don’t apply half of the time and, in turn, cause me to make “the oldest mistake in the book.”
To earn a PhD requires resilience. Therefore, if one shows resilience, they earn a PhD.
Makes it clear that this is confusing suff. for necess.: showing resilience doesn't mean they earn a PhD.
can someone confirm that this lesson isn't introducing anything new... like we learned this when we learned about conditional statements
#feedback All lessons should have a corresponding video associated with them. Even a 2-3 minute video would suffice. You charge a very large monthly fee and try to disassociate yourselves from other courses and other methods of learning the material on the LSAT. If individuals only learned through reading posts resembling a blog, people might not be willing to pay a monthly subscription and would opt for much cheaper alternatives.
Why am I paying for this program if you guys aren't making explanation videos? Isn't that what makes you better than traditionally using textbooks??
Could you say that the necessary condition is independent of the sufficient condition? That's how I think of it and it's helpful to me!
Did anyone else have to revisit this after the logic foundations course?
So G→B then the contrapositive is /B→/G which does not imply that all brave students are sorted to Gryffindor....is that right?
need a video
#feedback please add a video
#Extremelyconfused
No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery. Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor.
G = student chosen for Gryffindor
B = they exhibit bravery
No (Group 3, negate sufficient)
Unless (Group 4, negate necessary)
so,
/G → /B
---------
B → G
According to contrapositive rules /G → /B is equivalent to B → G.
Isn't this a valid argument?
I'm confused on how this is an invalid argument. I know it must be so simple, but the more I read it the more I cannot distinguish it. I know bravery is necessary for Gryffindor. What is the invalid part?
I get confused because when I see the unless I think negate and put as sufficient condition
No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery. Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor.
/bravery--> chosen for gryffindor?
Reading the comments I can see how Bravery is one of the things needed to get in, but not everything to be chosen for gryffindor.
? help
“No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery. Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor”
I followed the Group 3 and Group 4 conditional indicator rules and got:
Premise: must Exhibit Bravery → to be Chosen for Gryffindor
Conclusion: all Exhibit Bravery → will be Chosen for Gryffindor
It took me a while to understand why the conclusion is invalid. I added the words "must" and "all", and also "to be" and "will be" to my lawgic translation, because it helped me see what the sentences were actually saying. The conclusion is invalid because it's claiming that anyone who's brave will be a Gryffindor (are there not brave people in the other houses?), whereas the premise is saying that to be a Gryffindor, you have to be (at least) brave. That's a big difference. My only concern is that I didn't catch this initially, and it took me some time to realize it. It would be really helpful to have a strategy to avoid getting tripped up on these kinds of questions.
#feedback
For someone who is studying for 4 hrs on end its difficult to grasp the concepts without a video, anyone else struggling with that?
What happened to all the conditional indicators we learned? There's No (Group 4) and unless (Group 3). How do we put it into lawgic?