"No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery" essentially means that bravery is NECESSARY but it isn't SUFFICIENT to get into Gryffindor. The second sentence, "therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor" assumes that bravery is the ONLY trait required to get into Gryffindor.
#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.
To play for an NFL football team, you must exhibit strength, speed, and athleticism. Therefore, any athlete exhibiting strength, speed, and athleticism will receive a contract offer from an NFL team.
I mean this in the kindest and most respectful way possible, but if you cannot get through a 3 paragraph lesson without having a video to explain the content to you, you may want to reconsider a career in the legal field.
I mean this in the kindest and most respectful way possible, but if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. Maybe there is a lesson you can take from that :)
Maybe consider this a learning opportunity to develop the necessary skills for a successful career in law school and the legal field. I was not trying to be cruel in my comment, nor was I trying to be condescending. I was just wanting to point out that the majority of the work you will do in law school and as a lawyer will require massive amounts of reading (often complex materials) with no videos to guide you, so it may behoove those who are over reliant on video lessons to begin challenging themselves more by putting more emphasis on these written lessons.
A helpful tip if you really do need the videos to fully comprehend the information in these lessons, is that you can switch your syllabus to v1. Many of the old lessons for these topics still have videos with them.
With the recent format change for the LSAT, the 7Sage team is clearly putting in a consistent effort to update their lessons with the most relevant content and they've made clear they are currently working on producing videos for each of these updated lessons. This process obviously takes time and I'd imagine they are prioritizing the videos for more complex lessons than they are for foundational overview lessons. If you look ahead in your syllabus, you will see that many of the upcoming lessons do, in fact, already have videos.
Since I am genuinely trying to be helpful here, some other resources that I've found helpful (and you may already be aware of) are the LSAT subreddit which is useful if you have very specific questions about course content or practice test questions. If you're finding the content for 7Sage lacking when it comes to their videos, it may be helpful to consider transitioning to Blueprint as a study source, as they have great video lessons that come with their course.
I understand that these courses are expensive, so it's frustrating when the content feels inaccessible to one's individual learning style, but being able to comprehend information coming from myriad source types is an incredibly valuable skill, and one that will certainly benefit any career in the long run.
It was taught that when unless shows up we pick a side, then negate it and make it the sufficient and other side necessary. Can someone help me under why it's not that in this case. Very confusing lessons.
@Him Ideas: chosen for Gryffindor and exhibit bravery. Let's pick exhibit bravery. Negate it and put it as sufficient. /B --> /G. Contrapositive: G --> B. Since the stimulus says "no student is chosen for Gryffindor", I negated that too. Idk if this made sense
@Him Here we have Group 4 (necessary) and Group 3 (sufficient) indicators. What I understood is that when no and unless appear in the same sentence, using unless rule is usually less complicated.
In the argument, we have two ideas: Gryffindor (G) and bravery (B). Using the unless rule, I usually choose the idea that comes after unless, which here is bravery. we negate it and get:
/B → /G
Since Gryffindor is already negated in the sentence, the translation becomes
/B → /G
Then we take the contrapositive:
G → B
That matches what he got in the video. However, the conclusion says B → G, which confuses the sufficient and necessary conditions. The original statement only gives us G → B, so we cannot conclude B → G. That reversal is why the argument is not valid. I hope this makes sense.
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.”
I agree...especially the example provided in this email, indicators "no" and unless appear at the same time. Based on the materials learned they should belong to negate sufficient/ necessary groups, but suddenly it seems like we don't do that type of translation and why "brave" has to be the necessary condition if we can choose to follow the negate sufficient path....
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
@Gotham You haven't done anything wrong, the counterpositive is just a restatement of the original, and in the case of "unless" it's really no different. You got the same logic out of the statement in the end, so it's fine.
@msfro He skips that first "negate/sufficient" step ("Unless" = Group 3) and deriving its contrapositive, and jumps immediately to G --> B. I did those other prelim steps as well. We're not wrong, but I think the idea is to be able to recognize these patterns and jump to the later parts of the reasoning, just as a time-saving trick.
You flip AND negate both sides. So A → B becomes ¬B → ¬A. That's always valid.
The trap is when you flip WITHOUT negating — turning A → B into B → A. That's the sufficiency/necessity swap the lesson is warning about.
So for Gryffindor (G → B): "no bravery, no Gryffindor" (¬B → ¬G) is legit, but "brave, so Gryffindor" (B → G) is the mistake. Just remember: swap + negate = good, swap only = trap.
"To distract you with something unimportant so you overlook something crucial" this is basically the whole LSAT lol. I think keeping this in mind is significant, realize that 4/5 questions are there to waste your time
how come we didn’t follow group 4 indicator rules for the first sentence. It has “no” so why wouldn’t we pick either idea and negate it to make it the necessary condition?
@BrockFreeman In the conditional logic module he said if there is also "unless" in the sentence you should follow the group 3 indicator rules. So negating the sufficient condition: chosen for gryffindor--> brave or /brave --> /chosen for gryffindor
@VanillaCat I don't know if I made this specific enough the original two concepts would be "/chosen and brave." We keep the "no" as a negation since we are using group 3 indicator rules
119 comments
This is how I think about it:
"No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery" essentially means that bravery is NECESSARY but it isn't SUFFICIENT to get into Gryffindor. The second sentence, "therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor" assumes that bravery is the ONLY trait required to get into Gryffindor.
I think this is absolutely the correct train of thought in these circumstances
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
@DaisyVidana A very good example lol. We can all relate
@DaisyVidana real asf
Doing the lawgic mentally now. No one can stop me
@MRod this is the way
I’ve been doing this so much that I’ve started thinking of my life in sufficient and necessary conditions. Guess that means it’s working!
#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.
Example of this flaw im just gonna write down
To play for an NFL football team, you must exhibit strength, speed, and athleticism. Therefore, any athlete exhibiting strength, speed, and athleticism will receive a contract offer from an NFL team.
Am I understanding this correctly?
@ThomasKruza Yes! That is incorrectly understanding the first set of conditions. Play for NFL --> strength + speed + athleticism.
The accurate contrapositive of this is ~strength or ~speed or ~athleticism --> ~play for NFL.
need a video
I mean this in the kindest and most respectful way possible, but if you cannot get through a 3 paragraph lesson without having a video to explain the content to you, you may want to reconsider a career in the legal field.
I mean this in the kindest and most respectful way possible, but if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. Maybe there is a lesson you can take from that :)
this is really disrespectful, @cmp.strt. let people learn in their own way and keep your thoughts to yourself. you do not run this course.
Maybe consider this a learning opportunity to develop the necessary skills for a successful career in law school and the legal field. I was not trying to be cruel in my comment, nor was I trying to be condescending. I was just wanting to point out that the majority of the work you will do in law school and as a lawyer will require massive amounts of reading (often complex materials) with no videos to guide you, so it may behoove those who are over reliant on video lessons to begin challenging themselves more by putting more emphasis on these written lessons.
A helpful tip if you really do need the videos to fully comprehend the information in these lessons, is that you can switch your syllabus to v1. Many of the old lessons for these topics still have videos with them.
With the recent format change for the LSAT, the 7Sage team is clearly putting in a consistent effort to update their lessons with the most relevant content and they've made clear they are currently working on producing videos for each of these updated lessons. This process obviously takes time and I'd imagine they are prioritizing the videos for more complex lessons than they are for foundational overview lessons. If you look ahead in your syllabus, you will see that many of the upcoming lessons do, in fact, already have videos.
Since I am genuinely trying to be helpful here, some other resources that I've found helpful (and you may already be aware of) are the LSAT subreddit which is useful if you have very specific questions about course content or practice test questions. If you're finding the content for 7Sage lacking when it comes to their videos, it may be helpful to consider transitioning to Blueprint as a study source, as they have great video lessons that come with their course.
I understand that these courses are expensive, so it's frustrating when the content feels inaccessible to one's individual learning style, but being able to comprehend information coming from myriad source types is an incredibly valuable skill, and one that will certainly benefit any career in the long run.
The way I got it right because I was like "THERE ARE OTHER HOUSES TO BE SORTED INTO"
@Oblivion This made me lol because same :D
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.
@chris-11 Thank you, this really clicked for me
the lsat test makers won't get me!!! I refuse to let their psychological traps win EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
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??
Thought I was doing well, until I tried to map this out without my notes... back to square one I guess
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).
#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?
Though it's a little difficult, I like to think I'm getting reading practice in.
Yes! I just submitted the same thing in the previous lesson. I am a little bit upset that there are no videos at all
It was taught that when unless shows up we pick a side, then negate it and make it the sufficient and other side necessary. Can someone help me under why it's not that in this case. Very confusing lessons.
@Him Ideas: chosen for Gryffindor and exhibit bravery. Let's pick exhibit bravery. Negate it and put it as sufficient. /B --> /G. Contrapositive: G --> B. Since the stimulus says "no student is chosen for Gryffindor", I negated that too. Idk if this made sense
@Him Same I was like what the heck
@Him Here we have Group 4 (necessary) and Group 3 (sufficient) indicators. What I understood is that when no and unless appear in the same sentence, using unless rule is usually less complicated.
In the argument, we have two ideas: Gryffindor (G) and bravery (B). Using the unless rule, I usually choose the idea that comes after unless, which here is bravery. we negate it and get:
/B → /G
Since Gryffindor is already negated in the sentence, the translation becomes
/B → /G
Then we take the contrapositive:
G → B
That matches what he got in the video. However, the conclusion says B → G, which confuses the sufficient and necessary conditions. The original statement only gives us G → B, so we cannot conclude B → G. That reversal is why the argument is not valid. I hope this makes sense.
@Anita i am confused because i saw the word unless and followed the group 3 rules and got /b--> /g
wouldn't those two negations cancel out and just give me b-->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.”
I agree...especially the example provided in this email, indicators "no" and unless appear at the same time. Based on the materials learned they should belong to negate sufficient/ necessary groups, but suddenly it seems like we don't do that type of translation and why "brave" has to be the necessary condition if we can choose to follow the negate sufficient path....
#feedback please add a video
the lore
I THOUGHT IT WAS VALID UP UNTIL I ACTUALLY NEGATED THE WORDS UP
#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?
@Gotham You haven't done anything wrong, the counterpositive is just a restatement of the original, and in the case of "unless" it's really no different. You got the same logic out of the statement in the end, so it's fine.
@Gotham i had this same exact thought and issue but i can't seem to get to bravery > gryffindor from the vid?
@msfro He skips that first "negate/sufficient" step ("Unless" = Group 3) and deriving its contrapositive, and jumps immediately to G --> B. I did those other prelim steps as well. We're not wrong, but I think the idea is to be able to recognize these patterns and jump to the later parts of the reasoning, just as a time-saving trick.
You flip AND negate both sides. So A → B becomes ¬B → ¬A. That's always valid.
The trap is when you flip WITHOUT negating — turning A → B into B → A. That's the sufficiency/necessity swap the lesson is warning about.
So for Gryffindor (G → B): "no bravery, no Gryffindor" (¬B → ¬G) is legit, but "brave, so Gryffindor" (B → G) is the mistake. Just remember: swap + negate = good, swap only = trap.
"To distract you with something unimportant so you overlook something crucial" this is basically the whole LSAT lol. I think keeping this in mind is significant, realize that 4/5 questions are there to waste your time
how come we didn’t follow group 4 indicator rules for the first sentence. It has “no” so why wouldn’t we pick either idea and negate it to make it the necessary condition?
@BrockFreeman In the conditional logic module he said if there is also "unless" in the sentence you should follow the group 3 indicator rules. So negating the sufficient condition: chosen for gryffindor--> brave or /brave --> /chosen for gryffindor
@VanillaCat I don't know if I made this specific enough the original two concepts would be "/chosen and brave." We keep the "no" as a negation since we are using group 3 indicator rules