@ckimballdeaguero805 I did the same. I kicked up to the domain the term "proposal" and followed the conditional claim: Less than 50... and duplicate 25%... → /funding. However, I'm not too sure if this might cause an opportunity to fall for a trap answer.
@ckimballdeaguero805 thank you for simplifying it! I agree. This video explanation was way too excessive and really not helpful for LSAT prep. If they're going to teach people to map it out to this extent, people are going to get a crap score on LSAT simply from running out of time alone.
I know this has been mentioned before, but being able to see the answer choices before JY just tells us which one it is would be sooo much more helpful!!! #feedback
Agreed, I understand if these lessons are intended to show us the process instead of just being practice, but it would be nice if we were at least given the choice lol. It's disappointing to see the issue persisting even seven months later
Thanks for your feedback, and I'm sorry about that.
We've actually made an update to the answer choices. Now, you'll find the answer choices right below the video in the transcript. They're labeled "Answer Choice (A)," "Answer Choice (B)," and so on. Feel free to check out all the choices in writing before watching the video.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns!
I feel like the video explanations for questions in the lessons are way to long and include so much unnecessary info. It makes it hard to pay attention and distinguish between useful and fluff information.
@sydneybouwman YEah, all of the notes had me lost one after the other. Was way to long and too much info to take in, surely there has to be a more precise, clear way of getting down to the right answer.
If fewer than 50 ppl available for hire AND Dept duplicated more than 25% of material --> /proposal for a new department will be funded
2. Contrapose this statement
Proposal for a new department will be funded --> /fewer than 50 people available for hire OR /dept duplicated more than 25% of material.
As per De Morgens law, with OR in the necessary condition AT LEAST one (but possibly both) of the two conditions must trigger when sufficient condition is triggered. So in this case scenario, because the proposal for a new department was approved to be funded (sufficient condition triggered) and 25% of material covered in Area Studies department was duplicated, then the only plausible remaining answer choice would be A, that there is atleast 50 people avail. for hire, as this was the only remaining necessary condition left to be used.
This felt so intuitive to me. It was just clear that the answer would be that the new department has at least 50 people to hire. Is it necessary to diagram when you intuitively know the answer? Or is it a best practice to diagram only when you're not so sure?
@CheyenneBandy diagramming takes time so if you intuitively know, you should answer and move on. Diagramming feels more useful when you need to eliminate answers.
Before I watched the video I literally solved it like "if there are fewer then 50 people per year AND duplicate more than 25% THEN a proposal for a new department will not be funded" and instinctively knew the answer would be something about having at least 50 or more people in the department before i read the rest of the stimulus. when the stimulus mentioned that there will be a duplicate of 25% that automatically means there are at least 50 people in the department. Im not sure if i solved it the right way in my head but the way the video explained the embedded conditionals was just very confusing
I found this question super easy before watching this video. The way it is explained in the video adds a lot of confusion and the way he goes through all of the conditional logic is not straight forward at all... maybe that's just me. But after reading the stim it was very obvious what the conclusion was.. I almost wish I didnt watch the video for this one.
Yeah I felt the same way. It clicked super fast for me. This word salad is confusing and is not something you would even feasibly be able to do in the test.
I agree. It seems clear to me that you can say for a new department to be funded it must have 50 p/y and 25%. As will have 25%, and it is funded, so it must have 50 p/y as well. Felt like the explanation given in this video was muddled and added a lot of confusion that wasn't necessary.
Hey, I think the real tell in this question that made it easier for me was using the word "and" when talking about the criteria for not getting funding. because "and" means that both things needed to happen and one is confirmed in the stimulus to happen (the 25 percent duplication) we know that there must be 50+ people per year available since we also already know they got funding. I hope this helps and makes sense.
Not gunna lie, theres no need for the breakdown and I feel it makes it over complicated for people to underdstand, I got this question right with like 30 seconds.. super easy. My logic to this was it concluded it would fund the new program even though it was going to doup 25% more material, so the only other variable was it needs to have more then 50 people. I went to the answer choices, completely ignored everything that didnt talk about 50 people. There was only two choices, one saying less then 50 and one saying at least 50. If it needs 50 then the lesser is wrong right off the rip which leaves you with A... at least 50.
#help is it necessary to draw out conditional statements? I feel like they make me do so much work and require me to do so much extra thinking, I am more likely to get the question correct if I just go right from the stimulus to the answer choices with everything fresh in my head
I attempted this question prior to watching the video explanation by using the quick view feature. Though I got the correct answer, I still watched the video explanation afterwards and tbh found it to be confusing.
When I attempted it on my own, all I did was map out the conditional relationship and then immediately map out its contrapositive and then the correct answer was clear.
So, if you find the video explanation confusing then I would try mapping out the conditional statement and the contrapositive in a way that makes sense to you as long as the meaning stays the same.
For example, here's what I did:
P > 50 & +25% → /F
F → /P >50 or /P +25%
Gentle reminder: Just because you don't understand something explained in one way does not mean that you won't understand it explained in another way - don't give up.
this is good. I do the same. Also, good to note that fewer than 50 people = 49 or less negates into at least 50 people= 50 or more. Of course, the correct answer choice had to use that negation for the correct AC-A
Don't get me wrong, the explanation videos are super helpful most of the time, but sometimes the explanations themselves can be a bit confusing compared to how I reasoned/Lawgic'd the answer.
154 comments
I find this explanation video unnecessarily detailed and too confusing. It is much simpler to break it down as follows:
less than 50... and duplicate 25%... → /funding.
The stimulus says there will be funding. So take the contrapositive.
funding →/less than 50... OR /duplicate 25%.....
Since the stimulus says there is a duplicate 25%..., then there must not be less than 50 people available for hire.
@ckimballdeaguero805 I did the same. I kicked up to the domain the term "proposal" and followed the conditional claim: Less than 50... and duplicate 25%... → /funding. However, I'm not too sure if this might cause an opportunity to fall for a trap answer.
@ckimballdeaguero805 Thank you, this is very helpful!!
@ckimballdeaguero805 this is how I diagramed it too.
@ckimballdeaguero805 thank you for simplifying it! I agree. This video explanation was way too excessive and really not helpful for LSAT prep. If they're going to teach people to map it out to this extent, people are going to get a crap score on LSAT simply from running out of time alone.
I know this has been mentioned before, but being able to see the answer choices before JY just tells us which one it is would be sooo much more helpful!!! #feedback
Agreed, I understand if these lessons are intended to show us the process instead of just being practice, but it would be nice if we were at least given the choice lol. It's disappointing to see the issue persisting even seven months later
Hi there,
Thanks for your feedback, and I'm sorry about that.
We've actually made an update to the answer choices. Now, you'll find the answer choices right below the video in the transcript. They're labeled "Answer Choice (A)," "Answer Choice (B)," and so on. Feel free to check out all the choices in writing before watching the video.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns!
I feel like the video explanations for questions in the lessons are way to long and include so much unnecessary info. It makes it hard to pay attention and distinguish between useful and fluff information.
@sydneybouwman my exact thoughts. I've learned to turn the video off after a certain point
@sydneybouwman YEah, all of the notes had me lost one after the other. Was way to long and too much info to take in, surely there has to be a more precise, clear way of getting down to the right answer.
This was more confusing than it needed to be.
1. Map out the conditional,
If fewer than 50 ppl available for hire AND Dept duplicated more than 25% of material --> /proposal for a new department will be funded
2. Contrapose this statement
Proposal for a new department will be funded --> /fewer than 50 people available for hire OR /dept duplicated more than 25% of material.
As per De Morgens law, with OR in the necessary condition AT LEAST one (but possibly both) of the two conditions must trigger when sufficient condition is triggered. So in this case scenario, because the proposal for a new department was approved to be funded (sufficient condition triggered) and 25% of material covered in Area Studies department was duplicated, then the only plausible remaining answer choice would be A, that there is atleast 50 people avail. for hire, as this was the only remaining necessary condition left to be used.
Hope this is clearer.
Completely agree.
Thank you, so much clearer and got straight to the point. I was so confused by the explanation in the video.
Omg thank you so much! This explanation is clicking in my brain a lot better.
@lillbarboo this is how I solved it too. Embedded condition is somewhat unnecessarily complicated
This felt so intuitive to me. It was just clear that the answer would be that the new department has at least 50 people to hire. Is it necessary to diagram when you intuitively know the answer? Or is it a best practice to diagram only when you're not so sure?
@CheyenneBandy diagramming takes time so if you intuitively know, you should answer and move on. Diagramming feels more useful when you need to eliminate answers.
Before I watched the video I literally solved it like "if there are fewer then 50 people per year AND duplicate more than 25% THEN a proposal for a new department will not be funded" and instinctively knew the answer would be something about having at least 50 or more people in the department before i read the rest of the stimulus. when the stimulus mentioned that there will be a duplicate of 25% that automatically means there are at least 50 people in the department. Im not sure if i solved it the right way in my head but the way the video explained the embedded conditionals was just very confusing
your handwriting is impossible to follow, I also feel like you are making it 20x more complicated than it needs to be
conditional logic makes me wanna crash out
Is it bad that I’m not doing any of this writing out logic stuff, seems less complicated without
I found this question super easy before watching this video. The way it is explained in the video adds a lot of confusion and the way he goes through all of the conditional logic is not straight forward at all... maybe that's just me. But after reading the stim it was very obvious what the conclusion was.. I almost wish I didnt watch the video for this one.
Yeah I felt the same way. It clicked super fast for me. This word salad is confusing and is not something you would even feasibly be able to do in the test.
I agree. It seems clear to me that you can say for a new department to be funded it must have 50 p/y and 25%. As will have 25%, and it is funded, so it must have 50 p/y as well. Felt like the explanation given in this video was muddled and added a lot of confusion that wasn't necessary.
pov: you're at the end of the road
we'll get there, keep truckin
facts!
This writing is so messy, I can barely read it.
Rather than a review on MSS, I feel like this section needed a review on Lawgic.
Lord this question was so confusing...
Hey, I think the real tell in this question that made it easier for me was using the word "and" when talking about the criteria for not getting funding. because "and" means that both things needed to happen and one is confirmed in the stimulus to happen (the 25 percent duplication) we know that there must be 50+ people per year available since we also already know they got funding. I hope this helps and makes sense.
Not gunna lie, theres no need for the breakdown and I feel it makes it over complicated for people to underdstand, I got this question right with like 30 seconds.. super easy. My logic to this was it concluded it would fund the new program even though it was going to doup 25% more material, so the only other variable was it needs to have more then 50 people. I went to the answer choices, completely ignored everything that didnt talk about 50 people. There was only two choices, one saying less then 50 and one saying at least 50. If it needs 50 then the lesser is wrong right off the rip which leaves you with A... at least 50.
This type of logical reasoning question has been the most difficult so far...
#help is it necessary to draw out conditional statements? I feel like they make me do so much work and require me to do so much extra thinking, I am more likely to get the question correct if I just go right from the stimulus to the answer choices with everything fresh in my head
I attempted this question prior to watching the video explanation by using the quick view feature. Though I got the correct answer, I still watched the video explanation afterwards and tbh found it to be confusing.
When I attempted it on my own, all I did was map out the conditional relationship and then immediately map out its contrapositive and then the correct answer was clear.
So, if you find the video explanation confusing then I would try mapping out the conditional statement and the contrapositive in a way that makes sense to you as long as the meaning stays the same.
For example, here's what I did:
P > 50 & +25% → /F
F → /P >50 or /P +25%
Gentle reminder: Just because you don't understand something explained in one way does not mean that you won't understand it explained in another way - don't give up.
this is good. I do the same. Also, good to note that fewer than 50 people = 49 or less negates into at least 50 people= 50 or more. Of course, the correct answer choice had to use that negation for the correct AC-A
Exactly this!
Don't get me wrong, the explanation videos are super helpful most of the time, but sometimes the explanations themselves can be a bit confusing compared to how I reasoned/Lawgic'd the answer.
there has to be a way to answer this without the charts
And they told me a philosophy degree was useless.
lol I was a philosophy major for 3 years until I switched and I am so glad I stayed for the basics at least!!
phil major here too.
still confused LMAO
This is rather confusing at first, I'm hoping once I return it will begin to make more sense.
Hardest LR question type so far, but we all are capable of dominating it!
overexplanation
I feel like this lesson was a doozy
This one was so confusing for me...
me too!