My understanding: Almonds grown in California cannot be confirmed to be "produce in Cali.. that is designated as fruit". How would you know from "Some produce grown in California" applies to Almonds.
Thats like me saying:
Some Ferraris are made in Italy. Some cars manufactured in Italy are hypercars. Therefore, some Ferraris are considered hypercars.
That could be the case? But Lamborghini could make all the hypercars.
I think when it comes to dealing with uncertain quantifiers like some and most is just trying to come up with scenarios that would completely flip the script.
Most vegans are American, most Americans like milk. Does it follow that most vegans like milk?
Think about the most extreme example, given the statement, could it be the case that out of all the people who don't like milk, it just happens to be all the vegans? The prompt allows this possibility, therefore it does not follow.
Remember: When two "some" statements are chained together, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn.
Ex.
Some of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Some produce from GA is exported to Mexico. Therefore, some peaches are exported to Mexico.
USAp --s-> GA --s-> Mx
____
USAp <-s-> Mx
This is NOT a valid conclusion; maybe only 1 peach is grown per year, and therefore the "some" produce that's exported doesn't happen to include that peach.
I’d love videos for these to visualize. The lesson helps some for sure but I still feel lost applying the terms on the spot honestly. Is it a matter of just memorizing these rules would be best?
Hey! So I've been reviewing these flaw lessons since these are the questions I am getting wrong most frequently, and I was wondering if just memorizing these rules would be helpful. I somewhat understand why these are wrong depending on the context, but if I memorize these rules to look for key terms chained together would it be wrong to assume that I'd be able to get them right more frequently while saving time from reading the whole question?
This is the way I'm thinking about it so correct me if I'm wrong. Using the buckets visualization, we put some of A in some of B. Now some of B are in some of C but we don't know if the Bs that are in the C bucket hold some of the As.
It actually helped me to draw out the diagram for this one. A circle for A, Circle B intersecting A, and Circle C intersecting B. A and C don't have to intersect, so the conclusion from the Lawgic that A←s→C isn't valid. Works in my brain.
How are we identifying what is sufficient and necessary in these statements? It seems like we are just reading left to right.
English:
Some almonds are grown in California. Some produce grown in California is properly categorized as a fruit. Therefore, some almonds are properly categorized as a fruit.
If you need a visualization of this concept, go to the previous lesson's comment section and look for the google docs link. Guaranteed it will help you understand it.
"Some produce grown in California is properly categorized as a fruit." instead of using the term "produce" what if the argument used "almonds" instead? Then would the argument become valid? #help
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.
49 comments
Starting to make more sense
I dont even like almonds
My understanding: Almonds grown in California cannot be confirmed to be "produce in Cali.. that is designated as fruit". How would you know from "Some produce grown in California" applies to Almonds.
Thats like me saying:
Some Ferraris are made in Italy. Some cars manufactured in Italy are hypercars. Therefore, some Ferraris are considered hypercars.
That could be the case? But Lamborghini could make all the hypercars.
[This comment was deleted.]
I think when it comes to dealing with uncertain quantifiers like some and most is just trying to come up with scenarios that would completely flip the script.
Most vegans are American, most Americans like milk. Does it follow that most vegans like milk?
Think about the most extreme example, given the statement, could it be the case that out of all the people who don't like milk, it just happens to be all the vegans? The prompt allows this possibility, therefore it does not follow.
Some sour foods are candy,
some candy is chocolate
therefore some sour food is chocolate
Is this valid: A←s→B and A←s→C, therefore B←s→C.
Trap 6: Attempting to chain "Some"s
Remember: When two "some" statements are chained together, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn.
Ex.
Some of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Some produce from GA is exported to Mexico. Therefore, some peaches are exported to Mexico.
USAp --s-> GA --s-> Mx
____
USAp <-s-> Mx
This is NOT a valid conclusion; maybe only 1 peach is grown per year, and therefore the "some" produce that's exported doesn't happen to include that peach.
just to check- you cannot draw a valid conclusion from this argument, right?
A‑m→B←s→C
I’d love videos for these to visualize. The lesson helps some for sure but I still feel lost applying the terms on the spot honestly. Is it a matter of just memorizing these rules would be best?
idky yall dont make videos showing clearly this flaw
#help
Hey! So I've been reviewing these flaw lessons since these are the questions I am getting wrong most frequently, and I was wondering if just memorizing these rules would be helpful. I somewhat understand why these are wrong depending on the context, but if I memorize these rules to look for key terms chained together would it be wrong to assume that I'd be able to get them right more frequently while saving time from reading the whole question?
Sorry if that made absolutely no sense btw lol :0
This is the way I'm thinking about it so correct me if I'm wrong. Using the buckets visualization, we put some of A in some of B. Now some of B are in some of C but we don't know if the Bs that are in the C bucket hold some of the As.
It actually helped me to draw out the diagram for this one. A circle for A, Circle B intersecting A, and Circle C intersecting B. A and C don't have to intersect, so the conclusion from the Lawgic that A←s→C isn't valid. Works in my brain.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to just make a T-chart of invalid and valid formulas?
e.g.,
Invalid | Valid
S,S,S | M,M,S
A,M,S | M,A,S
A,S,S (lol) | S,A,S
#help
How are we identifying what is sufficient and necessary in these statements? It seems like we are just reading left to right.
English:
Some almonds are grown in California. Some produce grown in California is properly categorized as a fruit. Therefore, some almonds are properly categorized as a fruit.
Lawgic:
A ←s→ B ←s→ C
A ←s→ C
A ←s→ B ←s→ C
Wouldnt an argument like this be valid?
Some uni students study philosophy. Some students who study philsophy have 4.0 gpas. Therefore, some uni students have 4.0 gpas.
I feel like I can understand this from a logical stand point and Lawgic just confuses me. Should I focus on improving my Lawgic knowledge?
what makes a some before some argument valid?
does the some statement need the same starting point in the second sentence as the first?
for example:
1. Some almonds are grown in California.
2. Some almonds grown in California are properly categorized as a fruit.
and does the some statement need the second sentence to begin with "all" to be valid?
for example:
1. Some almonds are grown in California.
2. All almonds grown in California are produce.
If you need a visualization of this concept, go to the previous lesson's comment section and look for the google docs link. Guaranteed it will help you understand it.
A←s→B
A←s→C
conclusion: B←s→C
is this valid or invalid?
"Some produce grown in California is properly categorized as a fruit." instead of using the term "produce" what if the argument used "almonds" instead? Then would the argument become valid? #help