I ignored any question that stated "governments" needed to step up and provide water since it seemed too specific.... it could be a non profit, an international humanitarian group etc... so "an organization" was general enough
I'm getting these and understanding why they're right, but it's such a mindfuck to not have to dig into the nitty-gritty of arguments like in WSE and to a lesser extent RRE
Feeling discouraged because this section has been wrecking me in particular while most of the comment section seemed to have breezed through it. I understand the explanation videos and get the process. But on my own, everything feels so murky and questionable, and it takes way too long for me to get the clarity needed to solve the questions.
i'm confidently getting all of these correct, with time to spare, and i feel like i understand them- until i read below or watch the videos and then suddenly i'm so confused. i feel like the explanations are so unnecessarily complicated and confusing for this section.
Can someone explain this part of the written explanation for AC B: "While this rule potentially takes us to the right destination, that is, water should be supplied by a government agency which implies that it should not be supplied by a private for-profit company..."
So, "water should be supplied by a government agency" is LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to "water should not be supplied by a non-government agency"? This makes sense in my head but I don't understand how this maps onto lawgic.
if supplied, then govt agency ==> supplied --> govt agency
if not supplied, then not govt agency ==> /supplied --> /govt agency
These two ARE NOT contrapositives of each other. How can one imply the other, as the explanation says?
Sorry, I've been skipping around the lectures as last-minute prep before the LSAT. Is there a video/lecture that goes over all of the lawgic rules like negate sufficient?
Many questions, including this one, have been extremely glitchy for me. If anyone else has experienced the question text bouncing around the page very quickly, making it impossible to read, I'd like to have 7sage fix this bug.
Does anyone else rarely use lawgic? I realize I will never be a 170+ scorer this way.. but often I feel like the lawgic confuses me more than anything. It seems to over complicate, uncomplicated things.
I do realize some questions pretty much require it, and that is fine. I just do not feel like these ones require it.
I am starting to feel much more confident with this test! I can't wait for it to be torn back down when it comes to a new question type or the RC section. : )
If its actually making me mad to watch the videos when I'm getting the questions right do I still have to watch them? I feel like I understand why each answer is wrong/right and often when I watch J.Y. and I have the same reasoning.
one thing I Dont get on why it is E is that.. it says it should not be ran by a private for profit company . can't a health company be a private for profit
curious to know, if A did not mention the government agency bit would it be better as an option over E? I don't think it would but it is a narrower reasoning
For (B), isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume that "water should be supplied by a government agency" implies that it should not be supplied by a private for-profit company?
#help For answer A, we introduce another sufficient condition ("no govt provided water"). Because the stimulus is "currently unavailable" as stated in the stimulus, why can't we interpret that to mean that the govt is not providing water, confirming the addition SC?
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.
55 comments
im so gd nasty at these
I ignored any question that stated "governments" needed to step up and provide water since it seemed too specific.... it could be a non profit, an international humanitarian group etc... so "an organization" was general enough
is this thinking correct?
I'm getting these and understanding why they're right, but it's such a mindfuck to not have to dig into the nitty-gritty of arguments like in WSE and to a lesser extent RRE
Feeling discouraged because this section has been wrecking me in particular while most of the comment section seemed to have breezed through it. I understand the explanation videos and get the process. But on my own, everything feels so murky and questionable, and it takes way too long for me to get the clarity needed to solve the questions.
i'm confidently getting all of these correct, with time to spare, and i feel like i understand them- until i read below or watch the videos and then suddenly i'm so confused. i feel like the explanations are so unnecessarily complicated and confusing for this section.
I forgot there was an E and was so confused with the rest of the answers
OMG finally a question category I can get right.
I am absolutely ripping through these, feel like I finally found some logic types I am good at.
Can someone explain this part of the written explanation for AC B: "While this rule potentially takes us to the right destination, that is, water should be supplied by a government agency which implies that it should not be supplied by a private for-profit company..."
So, "water should be supplied by a government agency" is LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to "water should not be supplied by a non-government agency"? This makes sense in my head but I don't understand how this maps onto lawgic.
if supplied, then govt agency ==> supplied --> govt agency
if not supplied, then not govt agency ==> /supplied --> /govt agency
These two ARE NOT contrapositives of each other. How can one imply the other, as the explanation says?
The classic.. "UH, OKAYYYYYY?" for every AC.....
Sorry, I've been skipping around the lectures as last-minute prep before the LSAT. Is there a video/lecture that goes over all of the lawgic rules like negate sufficient?
Many questions, including this one, have been extremely glitchy for me. If anyone else has experienced the question text bouncing around the page very quickly, making it impossible to read, I'd like to have 7sage fix this bug.
Haven't gotten one wrong yet, can't wait to get one wrong and absolutely implode!
Does anyone else rarely use lawgic? I realize I will never be a 170+ scorer this way.. but often I feel like the lawgic confuses me more than anything. It seems to over complicate, uncomplicated things.
I do realize some questions pretty much require it, and that is fine. I just do not feel like these ones require it.
Idk what it is but I am on a roll with these questions
Premise, (answer choice) = conclusion.
This helped me sm!
E actually does directly support the conclusion if we apply the contrapositive to what it is saying. Roughly translated it becomes
if an organization doesn't have the primary goal of promoting public health, then it shouldn't provide things necessary for human health
I am starting to feel much more confident with this test! I can't wait for it to be torn back down when it comes to a new question type or the RC section. : )
If its actually making me mad to watch the videos when I'm getting the questions right do I still have to watch them? I feel like I understand why each answer is wrong/right and often when I watch J.Y. and I have the same reasoning.
I can’t understand these rule and application questions
one thing I Dont get on why it is E is that.. it says it should not be ran by a private for profit company . can't a health company be a private for profit
curious to know, if A did not mention the government agency bit would it be better as an option over E? I don't think it would but it is a narrower reasoning
For (B), isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume that "water should be supplied by a government agency" implies that it should not be supplied by a private for-profit company?
i almost fell for a bc the first sentence is so tempting. just goes to show the importance of reading each answer choice all the way through
#help For answer A, we introduce another sufficient condition ("no govt provided water"). Because the stimulus is "currently unavailable" as stated in the stimulus, why can't we interpret that to mean that the govt is not providing water, confirming the addition SC?