I noticed something in this video that I had not noticed before. J.Y. is reading the AC's starting in the middle with the word "if" and it makes it a bit easier to understand more quickly. At least it did for me, and I would imagine it does for him as well, which is why he reads it that way. The quicker, the better.
I hope this helps someone. I will use this strategy moving forward.
Edit: I wrote this before getting to the end of the video...and of course he pointed it out! lol
is there a way to break down questions like these without writing out the logic? these explanations are all finding the answer by using the logic chain, is that the best way to find the answers
I've been thinking about this question, and feel like if I were to see it under time pressure I would translate the second half of it differently in my head.
Listing --> easier to limit --> some people would do so --> they would be healthier.
I know JY's explanation contains far more clarity, but I don't feel that I would replicate that more-intricate-than-not level of logic under timed conditions. Does my translation work? Is it a bad habit that will punish me in other questions?
I know we can see the quick view but having the ability to highlight certain areas of the text in that quick view would be super helpful as someone who color-codes everything to break down text.
These conditional chains have never made sense to me. I feel like I take more time trying to figure out how to set up the chain than just letting it click in my head and moving to the answer choices. Anyone else?
in the video you mentioned we can take the contrapositive of the " people ←s→ improve" statement, but from what I remember in previous lessons you said "some" and "most" statements don't have contrapositives. am I missing something?
Maybe it is just because I am not great at linking, but I used slightly different, simpler lawgic (or at least a different format) and got the same answer:
ECC= exact caffeine content
HI= health improves
ECC--> easier limit
easier limit HI
And then found the correct answer...
Is this too reductionist? Like am I ignoring important links?
I am learning with each lesson I am more intuitive than lawgic. However, considering the lawgic framework allows me to confirm my intuition. sips coffee
To diagram the stimulus, would it also make sense to do: list exact content→easier to limit caffeine intake→many would limit intake→improve their health? or do you have to diagram the "some" relationship? I still got the right answer this way, because I know that many implies some.
Are there other people getting these questions right, but doing the actually work completely different from the teacher? I got the past questions right but my work is so different it's concerning me haha :
How would his logical conclusions (ones in blue) not violate the all before some rule? Seems like that is exactly what it is doing...
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.
63 comments
What are the parentheses for in the Lawgic?
This question type will be the hardest thing for me on the LSAT.
I noticed something in this video that I had not noticed before. J.Y. is reading the AC's starting in the middle with the word "if" and it makes it a bit easier to understand more quickly. At least it did for me, and I would imagine it does for him as well, which is why he reads it that way. The quicker, the better.
I hope this helps someone. I will use this strategy moving forward.
Edit: I wrote this before getting to the end of the video...and of course he pointed it out! lol
is there a way to break down questions like these without writing out the logic? these explanations are all finding the answer by using the logic chain, is that the best way to find the answers
do you need to put parentheses?
list → e → (people ←s→ limit → improve)
if you didn't have parentheses, would it fall under the "all before some" invalid argument in which case you can't say that:
e ←s→ improve
list ←s→ improve
making (A) not a valid conclusion?
#help
I've been thinking about this question, and feel like if I were to see it under time pressure I would translate the second half of it differently in my head.
Listing --> easier to limit --> some people would do so --> they would be healthier.
I know JY's explanation contains far more clarity, but I don't feel that I would replicate that more-intricate-than-not level of logic under timed conditions. Does my translation work? Is it a bad habit that will punish me in other questions?
I know we can see the quick view but having the ability to highlight certain areas of the text in that quick view would be super helpful as someone who color-codes everything to break down text.
something i learned that may be helpful:
some + some = no inference can be made
some + most = no inference can be made
most + most = an inference of "some" can be made
"some" simply means that there is more than zero – "most" means more than half. most does NOT rule out all, we cannot infer that
Is "e" and "limit" not referring to the same thing, "make it easier to limit, but not eliminate, one’s caffeine intake"?
These conditional chains have never made sense to me. I feel like I take more time trying to figure out how to set up the chain than just letting it click in my head and moving to the answer choices. Anyone else?
This is getting fun!
I did this without writing out any logic by remembering many implies some, and carefully parsing out the grammar and meaning of the stimulus.
We're going to get this!!
in the video you mentioned we can take the contrapositive of the " people ←s→ improve" statement, but from what I remember in previous lessons you said "some" and "most" statements don't have contrapositives. am I missing something?
Maybe it is just because I am not great at linking, but I used slightly different, simpler lawgic (or at least a different format) and got the same answer:
ECC= exact caffeine content
HI= health improves
ECC--> easier limit
easier limit HI
And then found the correct answer...
Is this too reductionist? Like am I ignoring important links?
I am learning with each lesson I am more intuitive than lawgic. However, considering the lawgic framework allows me to confirm my intuition. sips coffee
To diagram the stimulus, would it also make sense to do: list exact content→easier to limit caffeine intake→many would limit intake→improve their health? or do you have to diagram the "some" relationship? I still got the right answer this way, because I know that many implies some.
Are there other people getting these questions right, but doing the actually work completely different from the teacher? I got the past questions right but my work is so different it's concerning me haha :
I messed this up because I didnt think of the "if"s in the answer choices, and did not put them in the sufficient spot. Good thing to remember.
finally got a MSS question right 😄
#feedback I reallyyyy dont like that the answer choices are hidden. I want to be able to guess before the correct answer is revealed.
I wish there had been a mini drill to let us try this one before it was covered
does anyone feel like LR suddenly got difficult after we moved from most strongly supported to most likely to be true?
I feel like we can have a bit more content combine grammar and lawgic to help us with these parse the question
How would his logical conclusions (ones in blue) not violate the all before some rule? Seems like that is exactly what it is doing...