When the question states: "...many people would do so, which would improve their health", how do we justify that this presents an embedded necessary condition? Why is the interpretation of: (listed -> easier -> people <-s-> limit -> improve) flawed in this case? If its because were talking about a hipothetical, whats logic that tells us we have to make it an embedded condition?
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 had the same thought and treated this question more like causal logic. I went:
exact caffeine --> limit (/eliminate) --> many people --> better health. That led me to A without any doubt.
Here's the thing. You got the right answer, and, I'm assuming, the way you wrote your chain didn't allow for the other answer choices to corrupt it. That's great! That means you understood the question. I wouldn't overthink it. If you are worried, I would do a MBT drill on the hardest setting and see if you encounter the issue of incorrectly translating and go from there.
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.
most people eat grapes. most people eat strawberries. therefore, some people eat grapes and strawberries. this is something I learned from the LSAT Trainer book :)
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?
same. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't but I certainly don't try to implement them because if I get something wrong with them then it could mess up my whole answer! I try to pay attention to just how he dissects these passages and it's helped to just pick up a pattern. reminder that some methods just might not work for you and thats okay. rather than wasting time forcing it or confusing yourself even more, rely on what you know to be true about yourself. Hope this helps -someone who's in the same boat as you Lol
I think the main reason for drawing out chains is for when you find that nothing or very little is clicking in your head. Also, it guarantees that by writing out the complex argument simply in logic, it reduces risk of misunderstanding the argument through retaining it all in your head. Just depends on your level of comprehension and confidence! I didn't need to translate into logic to get the question right. But when I blind reviewed, I mapped out the logic to confirm if my answer selection was correct :)
I would suggest to maybe review the logic/conditional chain section in the foundations section! Something I have found is that a good amount of LR questions have some element of conditional reasoning. Purposefully mapping out conditional statements, even if it may seem simple or redundant, will make you more comfortable in creating these important links during testing conditions!
Sometimes, I like to drill untimed with conditional reasoning tags. Within these drills I take the time to map out conditional statements and rewatch the explanation, regardless if I got the question right, to further understand Lawgic!
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?
I think you are referring to negation and not contrapositive. Most doesn't have a negation while some's negation is All or none, but some's contrapositive is just a rewording of the two sides without any negations.
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 got the correct answer, but I didn't link the statements the same way as the video. The video uses the following relationship structure:
Label Caffeine Content → Easier Limit (But not Eliminate) → People ←s→ Limit (But not Eliminate) → Health Improves
When I diagrammed this prior to watching the review video, I came up with the following:
Label Caffeine Content → Easier Limit ←s→ Improve Health
I kicked. 'but not eliminate and 'people' into the domain.
And then to get the correct answer, used the following inference:
Label Caffeine Content ←s→ Improve Health
But I know that this isn't a correct use of formal logic because, in an earlier lesson, we learn that "All Before Most/ All Before Some" does not yield a valid conclusion.
I see now that kicking 'people' into the domain may not have been correct here because it removed a necessary part of the overall structure. I guess I need a bit more work on knowing which items can be omitted/included...
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 :
Nah don't let it concern you! Everybody learns differently, there's not one "right" way to go about it. I have my own way that's been working really well for me.
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.
75 comments
Note to self: Many translates into some
pretty sure Coca Cola now displays caffeine amount on the can... at least here
A -> B <-s-> C: Invalid
A <-s-> B -> C: Valid
Here, I'm not sure why the () are necessary (?), but I see that the logic is: D -> A <-s-> B -> C
Is D -> C a valid conclusion? Or am I missing something that the () indicate?
When the question states: "...many people would do so, which would improve their health", how do we justify that this presents an embedded necessary condition? Why is the interpretation of: (listed -> easier -> people <-s-> limit -> improve) flawed in this case? If its because were talking about a hipothetical, whats logic that tells us we have to make it an embedded condition?
conditional logic q's like this make me want to crash out sometimes
should i press show question and try myself before watching video or does that reinforce bad habits since i havent learned concept yet?
@LiviaLSAT that's what i've been doing, and then i go through the written explanation, and i've been doing very well in this unit, if that helps
@LiviaLSAT I've been doing the same.
If you guys are getting these right w/ little to no hesitation, are you still walking through the video lessons?
@xyzana Yeah, especially with conditional logic, because I sometimes second-guess myself when I’m diagramming.
@xyzana tbh no because sometimes the videos j confuse me more but thats only if I get the question w/ no hesitation
What are the parentheses for in the Lawgic?
@mrcarrillo327 I believe it's when you have an embedded conditional (conditional in conditional)
This question type will be the hardest thing for me on the LSAT.
@JRamirez imagine lsat writers are looking at our comments to know which questions we struggle with more
@JeromedoesLSATPREP yikesss, if they are, hopefully its for our benefit lol
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
@StanHolt I noticed this too, it helped me a lot as well.
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 had the same thought and treated this question more like causal logic. I went:
exact caffeine --> limit (/eliminate) --> many people --> better health. That led me to A without any doubt.
Here's the thing. You got the right answer, and, I'm assuming, the way you wrote your chain didn't allow for the other answer choices to corrupt it. That's great! That means you understood the question. I wouldn't overthink it. If you are worried, I would do a MBT drill on the hardest setting and see if you encounter the issue of incorrectly translating and go from there.
You got this!
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
I am not sure exactly what you mean by most + most, but if it is a unidirectional chain then no inference can be drawn.
A most B most C. No inference.
A -most-> B, A -most-> C. We can draw the inference
B some C
Additionally,
A -most-> B --> C. This concludes that A some C.
Note: I tried to indicate that the some relations are bi-conditional but my computer won't let me for some reason
what i meant is like:
most people eat grapes. most people eat strawberries. therefore, some people eat grapes and strawberries. this is something I learned from the LSAT Trainer book :)
Ah yes! Exactly right. Best of luck to you and sending good vibes, we got this!
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?
me as well.
same. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't but I certainly don't try to implement them because if I get something wrong with them then it could mess up my whole answer! I try to pay attention to just how he dissects these passages and it's helped to just pick up a pattern. reminder that some methods just might not work for you and thats okay. rather than wasting time forcing it or confusing yourself even more, rely on what you know to be true about yourself. Hope this helps -someone who's in the same boat as you Lol
I think the main reason for drawing out chains is for when you find that nothing or very little is clicking in your head. Also, it guarantees that by writing out the complex argument simply in logic, it reduces risk of misunderstanding the argument through retaining it all in your head. Just depends on your level of comprehension and confidence! I didn't need to translate into logic to get the question right. But when I blind reviewed, I mapped out the logic to confirm if my answer selection was correct :)
I would suggest to maybe review the logic/conditional chain section in the foundations section! Something I have found is that a good amount of LR questions have some element of conditional reasoning. Purposefully mapping out conditional statements, even if it may seem simple or redundant, will make you more comfortable in creating these important links during testing conditions!
Sometimes, I like to drill untimed with conditional reasoning tags. Within these drills I take the time to map out conditional statements and rewatch the explanation, regardless if I got the question right, to further understand Lawgic!
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?
I think you are referring to negation and not contrapositive. Most doesn't have a negation while some's negation is All or none, but some's contrapositive is just a rewording of the two sides without any negations.
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?
Yes, I had a similar result.
I got the correct answer, but I didn't link the statements the same way as the video. The video uses the following relationship structure:
Label Caffeine Content → Easier Limit (But not Eliminate) → People ←s→ Limit (But not Eliminate) → Health Improves
When I diagrammed this prior to watching the review video, I came up with the following:
Label Caffeine Content → Easier Limit ←s→ Improve Health
I kicked. 'but not eliminate and 'people' into the domain.
And then to get the correct answer, used the following inference:
Label Caffeine Content ←s→ Improve Health
But I know that this isn't a correct use of formal logic because, in an earlier lesson, we learn that "All Before Most/ All Before Some" does not yield a valid conclusion.
I see now that kicking 'people' into the domain may not have been correct here because it removed a necessary part of the overall structure. I guess I need a bit more work on knowing which items can be omitted/included...
https://7sage.com/lesson/all-before-some/
#help
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
same
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 :
Nah don't let it concern you! Everybody learns differently, there's not one "right" way to go about it. I have my own way that's been working really well for me.