@Bruh I would think about it this way: if the author only had 10 seconds to get their point across, what would they say? There is no individual freedom without social integrity? Nope. Pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity? Nope.
It's the conclusion: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law.
Then, you could ask: Why? Why can there be no individual freedom without the rule of law?
And that would then lead to the premises.
Hopefully imagining it that way helps! Otherwise, you can just think of "for" as a premise indicator.
This was quite confusing for me, I kept writing the arrows as rol -> indiv freedom because one led to the other but mixed it up becuse I forgot that rol is necessary for indiv freedom so i would be indiv freedom -> rol
@VincentLaGuardiaG. This is tempting but incorrect. "There is no individual freedom without the rule of law" still allows for the rule of law without individual freedom.
Each piece of the stim is the same structure, with the conc as the first claim supported by 2 more starting at "for..."
This not without this. So we negate sufficient each claim the same way.
P: Individual Freedom -> Social Integrity
P: Good Life -> Social Integrity
C: Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law
So we're probably looking for something that gives us:
Individual Freedom -> (Social Integrity) -> Rule of Law
It's also nice that most ACs are negate sufficient as well! This makes the analysis pretty straightforward.
A - suff/nec condition confusion.
B - Social Integrity -> Rule of Law. Correct, as predicted. This fills in the gap perfectly, and even with the same structure as the rest of the argument. Nice.
C - Good Life -> Rule of Law. Does not help with the stim's conclusion at all. In fact, it is an alt conclusion for the stim that AC B would make valid. It's a different question altogether.
D - suff/nec confusion. Prevails feels like a weird word choice here as well, but idk.
E - suff/nec confusion. It actually directly contradicts the conclusion in the stim, so it's egregiously wrong.
For answer choice C -
Our stim gives us a conclusion:
Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law
AC C gives an alt conclusion:
Good Life -> Rule of Law
AC B is the correct sufficient assumption for both of these conclusions. AC C is incorrect because it is not a sufficient assumption for the argument in the stim as written.
tbh I hate this videos, the way I do this exercises and what I've learned is that there will probably be more than one option that might look correct, so if I cant see all the options how can I be sure to pick a right one?
@SantiagoYanez Are you wanting to see the question before watching the video? If that's what you want, you can click on the "show question" button under the lesson title before watching the video.
Hi, how did individual freedom in the premise cancel out the one in (individual freedom --> Social Integrity) in the premise and we are only left with social integrity?
For the sufficient assumption, we don't need ind freedom because it's already established in the stim. We just need to bridge social integrity to rule of law to complete our chain.
Can someone tell me if this line of reasoning/approach has any flaws or if we can use this in SA questions?
All the info seems like it's floating around, so we must capture the argument by identifying the start and end points (but at least the end point of the argument, since we are looking for the missing sufficient assumption). The conclusion helps give us the end point and, in this particular stimulus, the start point.
End point of the entire argument: "rule of law" because "if individual freedom --> rule of law"
In the supporting premises, we are given the idea that if individual freedom --> social integrity . Now we have established a common start point for the argument, but how do we get to the end point "rule of law"? We must somehow link "social integrity" to "rule of law," and we must be cognizant that the argument ends with the "rule of law", so this must be in the necessary condition.
Correct AC: "if social integrity, then rule of law" -- this gives the missing link. Wrong answer A flips this relationship, yet another reason we must clearly identify those start and end points.
For someone who has seen more patterns, is this an approach we can generally use for conditional/formal logic heavy questions? Are there any other patterns/tips anyone has identified for this?
For this question, the "without" and "no" invokes both Group 3 and Group 4 rules.
How do you decide which rule applies?
In this example, after applying the Group 3 rule, the conclusion became:
ROL -> Individual Freedom (which is wrong) and I dont understand how this happened because I applied this rule:
Without = negate and make sufficient - so since ROL is already a negative, it cancels out and becomes a sufficient condition - is this wrong reasoning?
@breezyprabahar944 Your error is considering ROL already negative; it's not. You render it negative only because of "without", giving you "if no ROL then no F".
Regarding using "no" as a group 4 indicator, that doesn't apply here because the word "no" is used simply to describe a predicate, rather than a relationship between a subject and predicate. Consider two sentences:
No current students will graduate. In this context No is a group 4 indicator, and will yield:
If current students then will not graduate (negate necessary); or its contrapositive: if graduate then not current students.
But then consider:
Students belong to no fraternities. Here the word just describes the predicate, rather than describing the relationship of the subject to the predicate. So there's nothing to negate. That's how I understand it, anyway.
@KMK That's a good question! I'm not sure that it's really something you "decide", but rather something you realize when you identify the flaw in the argument and consider the answer choices. In the case of this question, the flaw is the gap between 'rule of law' and 'social integrity'. The conclusion is that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. Why? Because social integrity is necessary for individual freedom. Notice the gap? We need the answer choice to link 'rule of law' and 'social integrity'.
In abstract terms: We need A to achieve B because we need C to achieve B. (Where A = rule of law; B = individual freedom; C = social integrity). A must be connected to C.
Whether or not the second premise is there, it doesn't change the fact that there is a gap in the support structure between the first premise and the conclusion. The second premise says that social integrity is necessary to pursue the good life. But this isn't directly connected to the conclusion in the same way as the first premise. It's presented as an "also" rather than a "because".
@SaulMcGill At first, I saw how long the video was and was like not viewing it. But on second thought, I watched it, and it made this way clearer. Thank you for sharing this. Well worth the time.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
116 comments
How do we know that the first sentence is the conclusion?
I mapped it like this at first, which I obviously didn't know what to do with.
Freedom > ROL
Freedom > Social Integrity > Good life
@Bruh I would think about it this way: if the author only had 10 seconds to get their point across, what would they say? There is no individual freedom without social integrity? Nope. Pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity? Nope.
It's the conclusion: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law.
Then, you could ask: Why? Why can there be no individual freedom without the rule of law?
And that would then lead to the premises.
Hopefully imagining it that way helps! Otherwise, you can just think of "for" as a premise indicator.
@r.wang1 Thank u!!
got it right but mapped it completely backwards im screwed
This was quite confusing for me, I kept writing the arrows as rol -> indiv freedom because one led to the other but mixed it up becuse I forgot that rol is necessary for indiv freedom so i would be indiv freedom -> rol
I feel like "kicking things up into the domain" confuses me more
tried doing by myself it was not possible idk I am missing something here
might as well just discard the little lightbulbs which contain the "explanations" for each answer.
🧎🏾♀️🧎🏾♀️🧎🏾♀️
i am so hopeless at lawgic i just don't cant map these correctly to save my life
[This comment was deleted.]
@VincentLaGuardiaG. This is tempting but incorrect. "There is no individual freedom without the rule of law" still allows for the rule of law without individual freedom.
@VincentLaGuardiaG. no. "Without" is a Group Three indicator.
The final premise is translated as /SI -> /GL (GL -> SI), whereas you translated it backwards.
So C is valid but irrelevant?
2/2 for the 5 star difficult questions .. but I missed all the others ?? Lol
@LawyeRell same thing happened to me! i think things are finally clicking lol
This question fried my brain
Each piece of the stim is the same structure, with the conc as the first claim supported by 2 more starting at "for..."
This not without this. So we negate sufficient each claim the same way.
P: Individual Freedom -> Social Integrity
P: Good Life -> Social Integrity
C: Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law
So we're probably looking for something that gives us:
Individual Freedom -> (Social Integrity) -> Rule of Law
It's also nice that most ACs are negate sufficient as well! This makes the analysis pretty straightforward.
A - suff/nec condition confusion.
B - Social Integrity -> Rule of Law. Correct, as predicted. This fills in the gap perfectly, and even with the same structure as the rest of the argument. Nice.
C - Good Life -> Rule of Law. Does not help with the stim's conclusion at all. In fact, it is an alt conclusion for the stim that AC B would make valid. It's a different question altogether.
D - suff/nec confusion. Prevails feels like a weird word choice here as well, but idk.
E - suff/nec confusion. It actually directly contradicts the conclusion in the stim, so it's egregiously wrong.
For answer choice C -
Our stim gives us a conclusion:
Individual Freedom -> Rule of Law
AC C gives an alt conclusion:
Good Life -> Rule of Law
AC B is the correct sufficient assumption for both of these conclusions. AC C is incorrect because it is not a sufficient assumption for the argument in the stim as written.
tbh I hate this videos, the way I do this exercises and what I've learned is that there will probably be more than one option that might look correct, so if I cant see all the options how can I be sure to pick a right one?
@SantiagoYanez Are you wanting to see the question before watching the video? If that's what you want, you can click on the "show question" button under the lesson title before watching the video.
Hi, how did individual freedom in the premise cancel out the one in (individual freedom --> Social Integrity) in the premise and we are only left with social integrity?
@DakshMalik
For the sufficient assumption, we don't need ind freedom because it's already established in the stim. We just need to bridge social integrity to rule of law to complete our chain.
Can someone tell me if this line of reasoning/approach has any flaws or if we can use this in SA questions?
All the info seems like it's floating around, so we must capture the argument by identifying the start and end points (but at least the end point of the argument, since we are looking for the missing sufficient assumption). The conclusion helps give us the end point and, in this particular stimulus, the start point.
End point of the entire argument: "rule of law" because "if individual freedom --> rule of law"
In the supporting premises, we are given the idea that if individual freedom --> social integrity . Now we have established a common start point for the argument, but how do we get to the end point "rule of law"? We must somehow link "social integrity" to "rule of law," and we must be cognizant that the argument ends with the "rule of law", so this must be in the necessary condition.
Correct AC: "if social integrity, then rule of law" -- this gives the missing link. Wrong answer A flips this relationship, yet another reason we must clearly identify those start and end points.
For someone who has seen more patterns, is this an approach we can generally use for conditional/formal logic heavy questions? Are there any other patterns/tips anyone has identified for this?
#help #feedback
I created one long chain: good life --> social integrity --> individual freedom --> rule of law.
Is this still correct? I still got the right answer doing this. Did anyone else create this chain?
@JessicaVerdugoLopez I did this too!!
@JessicaVerdugoLopez You are confusion the suff/nec for social integrity and individual freedom. They run in parallel.
Individual freedom -> social integrity
Good Life -> social integrity
They are 2 separate chains. You just got lucky with your mistake.
finally got one of these right
I have become much more successful at these questions when I don't map them.
@CeciliaBurton1 How do you do it instead?
Be mindful of conclusion and premises when diagramming!
Question:
For this question, the "without" and "no" invokes both Group 3 and Group 4 rules.
How do you decide which rule applies?
In this example, after applying the Group 3 rule, the conclusion became:
ROL -> Individual Freedom (which is wrong) and I dont understand how this happened because I applied this rule:
Without = negate and make sufficient - so since ROL is already a negative, it cancels out and becomes a sufficient condition - is this wrong reasoning?
@breezyprabahar944 Your error is considering ROL already negative; it's not. You render it negative only because of "without", giving you "if no ROL then no F".
Regarding using "no" as a group 4 indicator, that doesn't apply here because the word "no" is used simply to describe a predicate, rather than a relationship between a subject and predicate. Consider two sentences:
No current students will graduate. In this context No is a group 4 indicator, and will yield:
If current students then will not graduate (negate necessary); or its contrapositive: if graduate then not current students.
But then consider:
Students belong to no fraternities. Here the word just describes the predicate, rather than describing the relationship of the subject to the predicate. So there's nothing to negate. That's how I understand it, anyway.
@JoelKeenanThat makes sense, thank you!
what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LSAT test writer -> evil
How are you able to decide that a certain premise doesn't matter and ignore it?
@KMK That's a good question! I'm not sure that it's really something you "decide", but rather something you realize when you identify the flaw in the argument and consider the answer choices. In the case of this question, the flaw is the gap between 'rule of law' and 'social integrity'. The conclusion is that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. Why? Because social integrity is necessary for individual freedom. Notice the gap? We need the answer choice to link 'rule of law' and 'social integrity'.
In abstract terms: We need A to achieve B because we need C to achieve B. (Where A = rule of law; B = individual freedom; C = social integrity). A must be connected to C.
Whether or not the second premise is there, it doesn't change the fact that there is a gap in the support structure between the first premise and the conclusion. The second premise says that social integrity is necessary to pursue the good life. But this isn't directly connected to the conclusion in the same way as the first premise. It's presented as an "also" rather than a "because".
This video helped me understand SA questions A LOT:
@SaulMcGill Great video; thanks.
@SaulMcGill Thank you! This is the first video that made this make sense
@SaulMcGill I literally teared up because I get it now
@SaulMcGill Thank you for posting that! Very helpful!
@SaulMcGill w video appareciate it
@SaulMcGill At first, I saw how long the video was and was like not viewing it. But on second thought, I watched it, and it made this way clearer. Thank you for sharing this. Well worth the time.
@SaulMcGill Thank you so much!! This question now makes sense.
@SaulMcGill Omg this helped so much. thank you!!!!!
@SaulMcGill you're the best