I can understand how D fails the first condition by just believing the the computer had been typically used. But, I don't see how D fails the second condition when it explicitly says "there were reasonable grounds for believing that the computer had typically been used in operation..". Is it not reasonable to assume it would also then contain usable evidence? Although, I did overlook the word legitimate, importing and smuggling are closely related and evidence could be stored on a legit business computer. I also feel like the use of "confiscated" in this context is consistent with no authorization. The laptop wasn't surrendered.
Does the "in addition" in line 5 make "used in the operation of a business" a sufficient condition for justified in addition to being a necessary condition?
"Now consider two conclusions: access is justified versus access if not justified. Which conclusion is reachable via the first rule? Access is not justified. That is a reachableconclusion. To reach it, we just need to trigger the rule contrapositively."
Can someone explain why the justified conclusion is not reachable if it's the suff condition?
If Im getting the correct answers in under timing should I still prioritize separating parts of the Stim into logic? I watched the video of the problem but it just made me confused. I can find the right answers on these types of problems but just have a hard time mapping it out to justify.
I was able to eliminate C and E initially. Then I was stuck between A, B, D. I looked over the question again and realized A didn't follow. However, I was really stuck between B and D, but couldn't distinguish a difference in reasoning. When I went to blind review, something told me to choose B, but I couldn't understand the reasoning and what the difference was.
Did not realize the "in addition" allowed you to put both "business computer" and "reasonable grounds that computer has evidence" on the sufficient side with each other. I ended up linking all three together by assuming that "in addition" was just like an "also" introducing the next fact. I linked "reasonable grounds of evidence" to "justified", which then linked to "business computer" from the first sentence. I guess the "in addition" threw me off. Didn't realize you could just slap em together like that on the sufficient side to connect to "justified".
Can someone please explain the reason why we can contrapose one of the rules but not the other? This is really not clicking for me...I need it in more digestible terms lol
7
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!
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.
152 comments
got it right!
I worked my lawgic out to be used in business operations + grounds for belief info is evidence --> access info w/o authorization is justified.
I got the answer correct but would like to know how do you know when to separate two logically statements?
I can understand how D fails the first condition by just believing the the computer had been typically used. But, I don't see how D fails the second condition when it explicitly says "there were reasonable grounds for believing that the computer had typically been used in operation..". Is it not reasonable to assume it would also then contain usable evidence? Although, I did overlook the word legitimate, importing and smuggling are closely related and evidence could be stored on a legit business computer. I also feel like the use of "confiscated" in this context is consistent with no authorization. The laptop wasn't surrendered.
#feedback
Does the "in addition" in line 5 make "used in the operation of a business" a sufficient condition for justified in addition to being a necessary condition?
Had B chosen for a good minute, chose E because im no longer mentally stable
Okay now how do I do this without panicking about how long it's taking me to read the answer choices/stimulus lol
I didn't really understand this question. Is there any way I could some more help on this?
"Now consider two conclusions: access is justified versus access if not justified. Which conclusion is reachable via the first rule? Access is not justified. That is a reachable conclusion. To reach it, we just need to trigger the rule contrapositively."
Can someone explain why the justified conclusion is not reachable if it's the suff condition?
can someone explain to me how did he transfer the "no authorization" up to domain? Maybe i didnt quite understand the rule? help
I got this on the dot, can I get a pizza party?
super helpful explanations ty!
[This comment was deleted.]
If Im getting the correct answers in under timing should I still prioritize separating parts of the Stim into logic? I watched the video of the problem but it just made me confused. I can find the right answers on these types of problems but just have a hard time mapping it out to justify.
I got it right but if i see a question this long on the LSAT im skipping and coming back later LOL
#feedback. I'm confused how one rule gets to justified vs unjustified? Is that normal?
that took me 4 minutes ....i got it right but how the heck is timing supposed to be learned when the answer choices are so long AND so similar
and they want me to answer this within 2 minutes????
they really snuck in a novel as an LSAT question
Once again overthinking the correct answer and switching it smh
I was able to eliminate C and E initially. Then I was stuck between A, B, D. I looked over the question again and realized A didn't follow. However, I was really stuck between B and D, but couldn't distinguish a difference in reasoning. When I went to blind review, something told me to choose B, but I couldn't understand the reasoning and what the difference was.
Did not realize the "in addition" allowed you to put both "business computer" and "reasonable grounds that computer has evidence" on the sufficient side with each other. I ended up linking all three together by assuming that "in addition" was just like an "also" introducing the next fact. I linked "reasonable grounds of evidence" to "justified", which then linked to "business computer" from the first sentence. I guess the "in addition" threw me off. Didn't realize you could just slap em together like that on the sufficient side to connect to "justified".
If a question similar to this is on the LSAT I will reasonably crashout during the test even though I got it right
How do we know whether "In addition" means AND or OR?
Above it is assumed to be AND.
I used OR and still got it right.
WHY?
This question took me so long
Can someone please explain the reason why we can contrapose one of the rules but not the other? This is really not clicking for me...I need it in more digestible terms lol