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.
@goldilocks deep breaths. I was really struggling with the weakener and strengthen questions. You got this, you are just as capable as everyone else is. You are smart. Take a step back,these drills are designed to be able to take slow. Dont worry about timing rn. u got this homie
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.
@moonydidit Yes I agree, WSE and this section in particular have such long explanations. And sometimes the video explanation isn't the same as the text explanation.
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?
essential + private co unwilling or unable --> supplied by gov
/supplied by gov --> /essential or /private co unwilling or unable
Explanation from a 7Sage person that I contacted:
The rule in answer choice B does not preclude government agencies AND private companies from supplying services essential to human health (e.g. water). If we map out answer choice B into Lawgic, our diagram could be: E+U [if something is Essential but companies are Unwilling/Unable to supply it] --> GA [then it should be supplied by a Government Agency]. So E+U --> GA
Even if the sufficient condition is not triggered (i.e. failed), the necessary condition can still occur! In this case, failing the sufficient condition would mean there does exist a private company that is willing/able to supply the service essential to human health. And said company might be doing just that: supplying the service! Great! It could also be true that some government agency is also supplying the same service. So, exactly as you point out, both of these entities can have a hand in providing the same, essential service.
If we wanted to be generous with answer choice B, we could say the necessary condition potentially implies that essential services should not be supplied by private companies (especially given the context in the stimulus). However, it is also completely fair to hold answer choice B to a higher standard, and not conclude that it produces such an implication (as you have).
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 agree, I feel like some of the sections it can be useful, but in these when I stopped thinking about Lawgic I started to get really good at these question types
Don't assume you won't be a 170+ scorer. I've read that many (let me be more specific--the majority) have never written down notes for anything other than logic games, and the logic games section was removed.
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've only been watching videos if I wasn't confident in my answer. If I was totally lost, I'll watch the whole thing. If i was stuck between two answers, I just jump to the explanations for those specific answer choices!
If you understand, I think it's okay. This section is coming to me easily so I've been watching long enough for confirmation about the correct answer I chose and about the other of the two I was stuck between (if that applies) and then moving on if I feel confident in the material/I could see or intuit quickly that the other answer choices were wrong.
I'm sure continuing to watch through has the value of highlighting certain nuances/patterns in wrong answers we might not have picked up on, but in the interest of completing the curriculum and getting to do more PTs/RC/writing section/drafting my application essays, I've been making the executive decision to not stay too long on what I intuitively understand so as to move onto question types/difficulty levels I find out I have more trouble with.
After all, you're the only one who knows your true understanding level and experience, and this is largely self-guided and so should depend largely on your own comfort level, which comes from your own discretion (especially if you're consistently getting all the questions right and within target time).
Obviously that's just my thoughts and experience, though!! It's up to you and you know yourself far better than I, a stranger on the internet, do!!! :))))
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
the premises in the stimulus explicitly state that the purpose of a private company is to make money and NOT to promote health, meaning its primary purpose is making money.
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
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.
59 comments
Correct answer with 8 seconds over time I'll take it
yayaya got it right!!!:) and was below the time frame:) super happy with my improvement :)
NOOOOO i was gonna choose E and then I doubted it😭😭
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?
@Catpop Yeah, I crossed out all the government answers because we're not talking about governmental agencies.
When i got to "organizations" it was more general, so if a private company shouldn't supply water, then some "organization" could.
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.
@goldilocks deep breaths. I was really struggling with the weakener and strengthen questions. You got this, you are just as capable as everyone else is. You are smart. Take a step back,these drills are designed to be able to take slow. Dont worry about timing rn. u got this homie
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.
@moonydidit Yes I agree, WSE and this section in particular have such long explanations. And sometimes the video explanation isn't the same as the text explanation.
I forgot there was an E and was so confused with the rest of the answers
@ricardogonzalezwork-1 comments like these keep me through frustration and misery lol
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.
LFG!!!!
my people
started season 1 of BCS yesterday
@Slippin-Jimmy He gets to be a lawyer??? You GOTTA stop him!
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?
never mind, "water should not be supplied by a non-government agency" is /govt agency --> /supplied, making them contrapositives.
essential + private co unwilling or unable --> supplied by gov
/supplied by gov --> /essential or /private co unwilling or unable
Explanation from a 7Sage person that I contacted:
The rule in answer choice B does not preclude government agencies AND private companies from supplying services essential to human health (e.g. water). If we map out answer choice B into Lawgic, our diagram could be: E+U [if something is Essential but companies are Unwilling/Unable to supply it] --> GA [then it should be supplied by a Government Agency]. So E+U --> GA
Even if the sufficient condition is not triggered (i.e. failed), the necessary condition can still occur! In this case, failing the sufficient condition would mean there does exist a private company that is willing/able to supply the service essential to human health. And said company might be doing just that: supplying the service! Great! It could also be true that some government agency is also supplying the same service. So, exactly as you point out, both of these entities can have a hand in providing the same, essential service.
If we wanted to be generous with answer choice B, we could say the necessary condition potentially implies that essential services should not be supplied by private companies (especially given the context in the stimulus). However, it is also completely fair to hold answer choice B to a higher standard, and not conclude that it produces such an implication (as you have).
The classic.. "UH, OKAYYYYYY?" for every AC.....
classic
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?
nvmm found it in foundations!
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!
real
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 agree, I feel like some of the sections it can be useful, but in these when I stopped thinking about Lawgic I started to get really good at these question types
Don't assume you won't be a 170+ scorer. I've read that many (let me be more specific--the majority) have never written down notes for anything other than logic games, and the logic games section was removed.
Same here.
you might find that taking a more intuitive approach will get you to be a high scorer
Idk what it is but I am on a roll with these questions
Same. They just seem very easy.
I think we're getting slow-rolled on difficulty this unit
watch the next section be hard as bricks lmao to compensate
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. : )
Same friend, same
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've only been watching videos if I wasn't confident in my answer. If I was totally lost, I'll watch the whole thing. If i was stuck between two answers, I just jump to the explanations for those specific answer choices!
If you understand, I think it's okay. This section is coming to me easily so I've been watching long enough for confirmation about the correct answer I chose and about the other of the two I was stuck between (if that applies) and then moving on if I feel confident in the material/I could see or intuit quickly that the other answer choices were wrong.
I'm sure continuing to watch through has the value of highlighting certain nuances/patterns in wrong answers we might not have picked up on, but in the interest of completing the curriculum and getting to do more PTs/RC/writing section/drafting my application essays, I've been making the executive decision to not stay too long on what I intuitively understand so as to move onto question types/difficulty levels I find out I have more trouble with.
After all, you're the only one who knows your true understanding level and experience, and this is largely self-guided and so should depend largely on your own comfort level, which comes from your own discretion (especially if you're consistently getting all the questions right and within target time).
Obviously that's just my thoughts and experience, though!! It's up to you and you know yourself far better than I, a stranger on the internet, do!!! :))))
I was wondering the same thing
Perfect answer, fully endorse!
great response!
☺️☺️☺️
I can’t understand these rule and application questions
you arent alone
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
the premises in the stimulus explicitly state that the purpose of a private company is to make money and NOT to promote health, meaning its primary purpose is making money.
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