I've struggled in this section to independently form the "bridge" that we're supposed to be looking out for. As a result, I have a difficult time differentiating the wrong ACs from the correct one. Is the bridge simply supposed to be premise -> conclusion? #help #pls
@Jandro_47 Yes, the bridge is the simple connection that links the premises to the conclusion
I think the most useful thing about explicitly writing this out is that you clearly understand what the missing gap in the stim is (if you have to fill in the facts), or what the rule is (if you have to fill in the rule)
@EmmaDjukic I think you can! We just haven't seen an example here.
What we did see an example of is that you just have to be very careful because a lot of trap answers will say something like "if it is not raining, then the hotel is not required to give an umbrella to guests" which confuses sufficiency and necessity. (what if the hotel owner really, really cares about guest sun protection and made the umbrella a requirement on sunny days??)
@KayleeMurray They're probably referring to the fact that, throughout the curriculum, whenever there was a video explanation for a problem, there was usually a summary of the premises and conclusion, understood as P -> C (premise leads to conclusion), as the most specific form of whatever rule you would be looking for in the answer choices.
@mszchloechen640 read it for familiarity and connection but don't try to remember everything or you'll stress yourself out even more (don't overthink the LSAT--Just Do It, Shia)
18 comments
I've struggled in this section to independently form the "bridge" that we're supposed to be looking out for. As a result, I have a difficult time differentiating the wrong ACs from the correct one. Is the bridge simply supposed to be premise -> conclusion? #help #pls
@Jandro_47 Yes, the bridge is the simple connection that links the premises to the conclusion
I think the most useful thing about explicitly writing this out is that you clearly understand what the missing gap in the stim is (if you have to fill in the facts), or what the rule is (if you have to fill in the rule)
Are you allowed to take the contra positive of a rule, or not?
For example, if the rule is:
"if there is a rain storm, the hotel must provide umbrellas to its guests"
are you allowed to say that:
"if the hotel is not required to give an umbrella to its guests, it is not raining"
Or do situations like that simply not arise in these question types?
@EmmaDjukic So from the lesson examples and You Trys in this section, seems like we cannot!
@EmmaDjukic I think you can! We just haven't seen an example here.
What we did see an example of is that you just have to be very careful because a lot of trap answers will say something like "if it is not raining, then the hotel is not required to give an umbrella to guests" which confuses sufficiency and necessity. (what if the hotel owner really, really cares about guest sun protection and made the umbrella a requirement on sunny days??)
goodbye to this section
@VanillaCat nevermind there's a drill
@VanillaCat laughing out loud at this
@char same lol!!!
@VanillaCat LOL I feel the same
what exactly does:
Patterns in right answers P → C
mean?
@KayleeMurray They're probably referring to the fact that, throughout the curriculum, whenever there was a video explanation for a problem, there was usually a summary of the premises and conclusion, understood as P -> C (premise leads to conclusion), as the most specific form of whatever rule you would be looking for in the answer choices.
This is a great summary!
#feedback I wish more of these articles were offered in video form as well
this is depressingly long
@mszchloechen640 read it for familiarity and connection but don't try to remember everything or you'll stress yourself out even more (don't overthink the LSAT--Just Do It, Shia)
hi; what does "logical notation" exactly refer to?
It refers to the "lawgic" lessons in the core curriculum!