Instead, it yields no valid conclusion. There is no relationship between all 3. They can only be broken in the 2 independent forms, like A -m-> B and B -m-> C.
I tried the question before I watched the lesson. My conditional chaining was very similar and led me to the right answer, yippee. However, I fell into the pet store mapping trap and idk if anyone else has seen this elsewhere, but I was under the impression that two most arrows stacked made a some arrow. So, I wasn't able to immediately identify the first chain as useless because I was keeping it in the back of my mind as a potential opportunity for a "some" answer.
I think using visuals (like the intersecting circles) would be really beneficial to everyone's understanding of this question. I made a very crude attempt at this to hopefully help anyone who needs it and to also see if I'm understanding it correctly.
I feel like I understood all the lessons from foundations but because there were so many different rules, I keep forgetting them when solving/ mapping the questions alone, and then when its mentioned in the video I'm like oh yeahhh how did I not think of that
275 comments
This question felt like inception..
REMEMBER:
A -m-> B -m-> C
DOES NOT MEAN
B <-s-> C
Instead, it yields no valid conclusion. There is no relationship between all 3. They can only be broken in the 2 independent forms, like A -m-> B and B -m-> C.
Definitely fell for the most before most flaw. This is a good question
they are really dragging it with these kinds of Q'S
I tried the question before I watched the lesson. My conditional chaining was very similar and led me to the right answer, yippee. However, I fell into the pet store mapping trap and idk if anyone else has seen this elsewhere, but I was under the impression that two most arrows stacked made a some arrow. So, I wasn't able to immediately identify the first chain as useless because I was keeping it in the back of my mind as a potential opportunity for a "some" answer.
legit feel I need to rely on POE at this point.....
Lowkey confusing asf.
Brutal
I think using visuals (like the intersecting circles) would be really beneficial to everyone's understanding of this question. I made a very crude attempt at this to hopefully help anyone who needs it and to also see if I'm understanding it correctly.
I feel like I understood all the lessons from foundations but because there were so many different rules, I keep forgetting them when solving/ mapping the questions alone, and then when its mentioned in the video I'm like oh yeahhh how did I not think of that
I had to read back some of the foundational lessons to not confuse myself of how the grammar parsing worked within the stimulus and the answer choices
Nah this question GOTTT ITTT LMAOOO
what the fu
How would you apply De Morgan's law if the conjunction/disjunction was in the sufficient clause?
Would you negate the necessary as well by default? Or can we not draw a conclusion since not proving sufficient doesn't warrant a conclusion?
first lesson of the day and i think the day is already over...
Im having so much trouble properly mapping these things out. My map always looks different which ultimately messes up the answer I choose, any tips?
wow this is a great question - it connects soooooo many concepts we have covered into one question
This question broke me. See you all tomorrow.
@petvma LITERALLY
i put a motivational post on the previous lesson....I STILL MEAN IT but this question cooked and fried me lollllll
okay so for starters I read "most" as "many" and went with some SMH bro LOL
Enough LSAT for the day....
what the heck was that
Alright this question was a bit insane i'm ngl
I hated this question so much but it makes more sense now.