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.
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
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
@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.
@KatarinaS Necessary condition is the superset. Sufficient condition is the subset.
umm a simpler way to visualize it for me was to think of the sufficient condition as a trigger, if it is completed then the necessary condition must follow. However if the necessary condition doesnt happen (aka contrapositive) then the sufficient condition didn't happen.
Ex: if i press my finger on the trigger then the gun will explode.
Sufficient Condition: Pressing finger on the trigger
Necessary Condition: Gun will explode
If the gun didnt explode then I didnt press my finger on the trigger.
But on thing to remember is that pressing my finger on the trigger isnt the only thing that will make the gun explode. There can be a myriad of things that produce that result, all we can say for 100% certainty is that if the gun didnt explode then I didnt press my finger on the trigger
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....
Nothing new -- It is just being made more explicit that this is a VERY common trap on the test and reiterating to not confuse sufficiency for necessity
#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.
@amhejka1 not completely independent. I mean if you fulfill the sufficient condition it will guarantee the necessary condition. And if you fail the necessary then you fail the sufficient.
Or did you mean the fact that fulfilling the sufficient condition is only one way to guarantee the necessary , leaving many other avenues of thought?
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
95 comments
The way I got it right because I was like "THERE ARE OTHER HOUSES TO BE SORTED INTO"
Thought I was doing well, until I tried to map this out without my notes... back to square one I guess
How can we always know which is the sufficient v necessary condition without indicator words?
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!
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.
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
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
@DaisyVidana A very good example lol. We can all relate
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?
@mkittrell
To buy an older car, you must be able to drive stick.
Must indicates necessary, so the argument is:
To buy an older car --> Able to drive stick.
Therefore, if you can drive stick you've driven older cars.
Therefore indicates conclusion, this is the conclusion of the argument.
If indicates sufficient. The argument is as follows:
Able to drive stick --> Have driven an older car
Overall arguement:
To buy an older car --> Able to drive stick.
Able to drive stick --> Have driven an older car
If easier to understand
A --> B
B --> C
This is invalid, but not for the reasons I think you meant it to be.
I think you should have said in the conclusion
"Therefore, if you can drive stick, you've bought an older car.
Does this make sense?
#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.
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?
@KatarinaS Necessary condition is the superset. Sufficient condition is the subset.
umm a simpler way to visualize it for me was to think of the sufficient condition as a trigger, if it is completed then the necessary condition must follow. However if the necessary condition doesnt happen (aka contrapositive) then the sufficient condition didn't happen.
Ex: if i press my finger on the trigger then the gun will explode.
Sufficient Condition: Pressing finger on the trigger
Necessary Condition: Gun will explode
If the gun didnt explode then I didnt press my finger on the trigger.
But on thing to remember is that pressing my finger on the trigger isnt the only thing that will make the gun explode. There can be a myriad of things that produce that result, all we can say for 100% certainty is that if the gun didnt explode then I didnt press my finger on the trigger
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.”
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....
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
can someone confirm that this lesson isn't introducing anything new... like we learned this when we learned about conditional statements
Nothing new -- It is just being made more explicit that this is a VERY common trap on the test and reiterating to not confuse sufficiency for necessity
#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!
@amhejka1 not completely independent. I mean if you fulfill the sufficient condition it will guarantee the necessary condition. And if you fail the necessary then you fail the sufficient.
Or did you mean the fact that fulfilling the sufficient condition is only one way to guarantee the necessary , leaving many other avenues of thought?
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?
That's right. If you are in Gryffindor (G) then you are brave (B).
Contrapositive: If you are not brave (/B) then you are not in Gryffindor (/G).
It is not saying that just because you are brave that you are in Gryffindor, but if you are in Gryffindor then you are definitely brave.
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.
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.
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.