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?
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?
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?
This is what I worked out and found out that I was wrong because I took the conclusion as a premise. My initial (WRONG) instinct was to just take the conditionals out of context. If we take these conditionals out of context they would read:
Individual Freedom→Rule of Law
Individual Freedom →Social Integrity
Good Life → Social integrity
I can combine those to get multiple right answers:
A
There for it is true both that
/Social Integrity→/Individual Freedom→/Rule of Law
/Social Integrity→/Rule of Law
or
There can be no Rule of Law without Social Integrity
AND
B
/Rule of Law→/Individual Freedom→/Social Integrity
/Rule of Law→/Social Integrity
or
There can be no Social Integrity without Rule of Law
AND
C
/Rule of Law→/Individual Freedom→/Social Integrity→/Good Life
/Rule of Law→/Good Life
or
One cannot pursue the good life without the rule of law
You get the point; I was like yeah all these are true and you're an idiot and guessed. BUT these are wrong because it is not what the QUESTION IS ASKING US TO DO. it is saying that given:
Individual Freedom →Social Integrity
And
Good Life → Social integrity
Prove that:
Individual Freedom→Rule of Law
is true
WE CANNOT USE "Individual Freedom→Rule of Law" TO PROVE THAT "Individual Freedom→Rule of Law" IS TRUE. The only way to do that without simply declaring it is to connect something to social integrity. that is as simple as drawing a line from social integrity to rule of law.
Social Integrity→Rule of Law
or
There can be no social integrity without rule of law. B
This is the simplest way to get to that conclusion in this argument.
TLDR: Don't try and use the conclusion in proving the conclusion.
I keep getting them correct, but honestly I don't understand the lawgic for these type of questions? I have intuativley gotten the answer right, but the explanation is making no sense and I can't apply lawgic... anyone else having this issue?
Started off the lesson getting every single question right, then after the alien questions I started getting them all wrong. This is the first one I get right. Thank f*cking god.
Okay so I get the answer right and I can explain why it's right but for the past questions, I can not explain why wrong answers are wrong with details. It just feels wrong to me.
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.
101 comments
i am so hopeless at lawgic i just don't cant map these correctly to save my life
Isn’t this also stated as
RL>IF>SI>GL
If you have rule of law you have individual freedom then you have social integrity.
So C is valid but irrelevant?
2/2 for the 5 star difficult questions .. but I missed all the others ?? 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?
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?
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?
finally got one of these right
I have become much more successful at these questions when I don't map them.
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?
what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LSAT test writer -> evil
How are you able to decide that a certain premise doesn't matter and ignore it?
This video helped me understand SA questions A LOT:
This is what I worked out and found out that I was wrong because I took the conclusion as a premise. My initial (WRONG) instinct was to just take the conditionals out of context. If we take these conditionals out of context they would read:
Individual Freedom→Rule of Law
Individual Freedom →Social Integrity
Good Life → Social integrity
I can combine those to get multiple right answers:
A
There for it is true both that
/Social Integrity→/Individual Freedom→/Rule of Law
/Social Integrity→/Rule of Law
or
There can be no Rule of Law without Social Integrity
AND
B
/Rule of Law→/Individual Freedom→/Social Integrity
/Rule of Law→/Social Integrity
or
There can be no Social Integrity without Rule of Law
AND
C
/Rule of Law→/Individual Freedom→/Social Integrity→/Good Life
/Rule of Law→/Good Life
or
One cannot pursue the good life without the rule of law
You get the point; I was like yeah all these are true and you're an idiot and guessed. BUT these are wrong because it is not what the QUESTION IS ASKING US TO DO. it is saying that given:
Individual Freedom →Social Integrity
And
Good Life → Social integrity
Prove that:
Individual Freedom→Rule of Law
is true
WE CANNOT USE "Individual Freedom→Rule of Law" TO PROVE THAT "Individual Freedom→Rule of Law" IS TRUE. The only way to do that without simply declaring it is to connect something to social integrity. that is as simple as drawing a line from social integrity to rule of law.
Social Integrity→Rule of Law
or
There can be no social integrity without rule of law. B
This is the simplest way to get to that conclusion in this argument.
TLDR: Don't try and use the conclusion in proving the conclusion.
can someone explain in simple terms why it is not C, like i get why its B but honestly the lawgic is making this so confusing for me
How do we know that "no" is not an indicator word that triggers a group 4 application?
I keep getting them correct, but honestly I don't understand the lawgic for these type of questions? I have intuativley gotten the answer right, but the explanation is making no sense and I can't apply lawgic... anyone else having this issue?
Started off the lesson getting every single question right, then after the alien questions I started getting them all wrong. This is the first one I get right. Thank f*cking god.
Okay so I get the answer right and I can explain why it's right but for the past questions, I can not explain why wrong answers are wrong with details. It just feels wrong to me.
IT TOOK ME 6 MINUTES BUT I GOT IT