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.
Really disliked this question. Not sure how people got C here, but felt like it could really have been either A or B.
the conditionals we are given are:
g.l→s.i
i. f→ s.i
i.f → r.l
as g.l →s.i obviously doesnt matter, we can strike it leaving us with:
i.f →s.i
i.f →r.l
You are supposed to pick B here instead of A because of the ",for" (meaning because) which for them seems to be sufficient to logically indicate that s.i → r.l is missing. For some reason, this really urks me because I dont think thats enough to indicate the relationship should be s.i →r.l more than r.l → s.i, which would naturally swing the question in favor of A or B. Not sure if I am missing something but I just dont think thats enough to move the needle in either direction.
The explanation did not need to be so complicated. You could have stopped at simply explaining we needed to bridge from (make up a "hypothetical syllogism" form) IF to ROL, whereby the assumption is SI → ROL
IF = Individual Freedoms, ROL = Rule of Law, and SI = Social Integrity
Hypothetical Syllogism:
A → B
B → C
A → B →C
--------------
∴ A → C
This argument in the stimulus simply didn't possess B → C and needed us to create it as the assumption
It took me an hour to review the G3 indicators, try to understand what this guy is saying, only to realize that I should have waited for the cats and dogs analogy, which simplified everything for me. SMH.
I felt good about this one, it seemed pretty straight forward.
The first sentence was a conditional conclusion so I kicked the sufficient condition into the premises and got the following:
social int. → indiv free
social int. → pursue good life
rule of law
_
indiv free
We needed a premise that linked the rule of law with the other premises as a sufficient condition for indiv free
B) There can be no social integrity without the rule of law.
rule of law → social int.
Then we chain it up and have our connection.
rule of law → social int. → indiv free
I realize a lot of people negate the negative condition to make everything positive but that just really confuses me and I don't know why. "Without" phrases sound inherently negative to me so I prefer to keep everything in the negative and then it makes perfect sense
I've been doing relatively well this entire SA unit and sometimes his lawgic translations do not make sense to me at all. In fact, they confuse me more than the plain English explanations. Does anyone else run into this problem from time to time?
11
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.
88 comments
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
Can someone help me review the exact logic steps of negate necessary that lead "no A is possible without B", to be translated to A --> B?
Really disliked this question. Not sure how people got C here, but felt like it could really have been either A or B.
the conditionals we are given are:
g.l→s.i
i. f→ s.i
i.f → r.l
as g.l →s.i obviously doesnt matter, we can strike it leaving us with:
i.f →s.i
i.f →r.l
You are supposed to pick B here instead of A because of the ",for" (meaning because) which for them seems to be sufficient to logically indicate that s.i → r.l is missing. For some reason, this really urks me because I dont think thats enough to indicate the relationship should be s.i →r.l more than r.l → s.i, which would naturally swing the question in favor of A or B. Not sure if I am missing something but I just dont think thats enough to move the needle in either direction.
The explanation did not need to be so complicated. You could have stopped at simply explaining we needed to bridge from (make up a "hypothetical syllogism" form) IF to ROL, whereby the assumption is SI → ROL
IF = Individual Freedoms, ROL = Rule of Law, and SI = Social Integrity
Hypothetical Syllogism:
A → B
B → C
A → B →C
--------------
∴ A → C
This argument in the stimulus simply didn't possess B → C and needed us to create it as the assumption
------------------------------------------
IF → SI (assumption: SI → ROL)
IF → SI → ROL
--------------
∴ IF → ROL
It took me an hour to review the G3 indicators, try to understand what this guy is saying, only to realize that I should have waited for the cats and dogs analogy, which simplified everything for me. SMH.
His explanations make it more confusing. Can someone explain how to tackle formal argument questions and not sound like a robot.
Ugh
I felt good about this one, it seemed pretty straight forward.
The first sentence was a conditional conclusion so I kicked the sufficient condition into the premises and got the following:
social int.→indiv freesocial int.→pursue good liferule of law_
indiv freeWe needed a premise that linked the rule of law with the other premises as a sufficient condition for
indiv freeB) There can be no social integrity without the rule of law.
rule of law→social int.Then we chain it up and have our connection.
rule of law→social int.→indiv freeI realize a lot of people negate the negative condition to make everything positive but that just really confuses me and I don't know why. "Without" phrases sound inherently negative to me so I prefer to keep everything in the negative and then it makes perfect sense
I've been doing relatively well this entire SA unit and sometimes his lawgic translations do not make sense to me at all. In fact, they confuse me more than the plain English explanations. Does anyone else run into this problem from time to time?