I am surprised this is a 4 star question. I got this right in 37 seconds even though my formal logic is not that solid.
I think what helped me is read the stimulus quickly and got a bird's eye view of the logical structure without going to specifics. This allowed me to see it was invalid argument structure in the forms of
A--> B
/A
-----
/B (invalid)
I also inferred /A because immediately assuming yeah they're saying it's unlikely they will favor, I will take that to mean they will not favor. I know it is not accurate but it helped me spot the logical structure of the argument much quicker.
This was my exact thought process. I think these last few lessons have really helped me see the difference of sufficient and necessary conditions, and when these two are confused with each other.
i feel like the reason people get this wrong in a timed scenario is not that it is logically complicated but that answer choice A looks like a trap. A is so obviously stating something in the way most people learn about suff and necc that it feels like a trick. Trying to psychoanalyze the test that you feel is designed to make you question everything may really get to people in said high pressure situation.
Does anyone else feel like they are only getting these right because of POE? The video explanations help but I'm really struggling to do these on my own without just guessing based on POE
I feel a little bit robbed because the narrator noted at the beginning of the flaw lesson that all of the correct answers will be sufficient/necessary confusion answer types
I felt like I had a good grasp on flaws in formal arguments and could pin point the issue in these Qs but kept getting tripped up by the wording in the AC. This lesson I realized 2 things (that might have already been clear) but that I hope help anyone running into the similar issues.
1. The flaw of negating the sufficient condition is equivalent to sufficient/necessary confusion.
Argument: A -> B
Flaw of Denying Sufficient: /A -> /B when contraposed is just B -> A
2. Since they are interchangeable, the alternative phrasing for A in the lesson is just saying that the arg negated the sufficient condition
Arg confuses that under certain conditions (A) an action will be taken (B) (A->B) with a claim that in the absence of that condition (/A) that action won't be taken (/B) (/A -> /B). Contrapose back, it becomes B -> A
This might not be new info but hope it helps anyone that might have initially overlooked this like I did.
Yayyyyy once again this brought me joy! I am currently 29% through the RC section and I am continuing to crash out. There’s a lot more information to retain and comprehend with the long passages compared to LR. The drills are making me lose it a bit but we hang in there. WE GOT THIS!!!!
I've gotten the last two questions wrong, but I'm actually more encouraged. I'm starting to see consistent themes in wrong answers. If my answers were consistently inconsistent I'd be much more worried here. Really enjoy the way this curriculum is structured, it highlights my weaknesses in a way that I can independently discover and dissect them.
Argument's conclusion: If /F then /B (this, in a contrapositive form, is if B then F)
Flaw in the argument: Premise said if F then B. It did NOT say if B then F (look! the conclusion wrongfully treated the sufficient condition (if F) as a necessary condition (then F).
Yesss 36 Seconds. Practice, practice, practice Sufficient and Neccesary until it infects your dreams guys! No shame in going back to those initial lessons :)
119 comments
Screw this test.
@dignatius2002645 Define, "Screw," as you have used it in your sentence
I am surprised this is a 4 star question. I got this right in 37 seconds even though my formal logic is not that solid.
I think what helped me is read the stimulus quickly and got a bird's eye view of the logical structure without going to specifics. This allowed me to see it was invalid argument structure in the forms of
A--> B
/A
-----
/B (invalid)
I also inferred /A because immediately assuming yeah they're saying it's unlikely they will favor, I will take that to mean they will not favor. I know it is not accurate but it helped me spot the logical structure of the argument much quicker.
EXACTLY what I did.
I got it in 26 seconds. The second I read it, I knew it was invalid conditional reasoning. 7sage is working!!
This was my exact thought process. I think these last few lessons have really helped me see the difference of sufficient and necessary conditions, and when these two are confused with each other.
I feel weird that I answered it right so fast. I'm having imposter syndrome or something.
i feel like the reason people get this wrong in a timed scenario is not that it is logically complicated but that answer choice A looks like a trap. A is so obviously stating something in the way most people learn about suff and necc that it feels like a trick. Trying to psychoanalyze the test that you feel is designed to make you question everything may really get to people in said high pressure situation.
Does anyone else feel like they are only getting these right because of POE? The video explanations help but I'm really struggling to do these on my own without just guessing based on POE
i feel the same way
i keep confusing myself with these suff necess questions :(
i hate doing LSAT. come hell or high water i will be taking this test in may or june of next year and im done i cant take it anymore
@Jupiter24 maybe take a week off and come back.
this one didn't even need to read beyond A lol, was classic suff/nec flaw i feel like should be 2 star question no?
Agreed, was the easiest question in the set.
"I feel like it's my birthday" lol. You are a riot.
Idk how to explain it but I just felt in my soul that there was a sufficient necessity confusion and went with A LMAO.
i got so mad that i've been struggling with this section that i got this question right in 30 seconds by simply being pissed off at it
I feel a little bit robbed because the narrator noted at the beginning of the flaw lesson that all of the correct answers will be sufficient/necessary confusion answer types
I felt like I had a good grasp on flaws in formal arguments and could pin point the issue in these Qs but kept getting tripped up by the wording in the AC. This lesson I realized 2 things (that might have already been clear) but that I hope help anyone running into the similar issues.
1. The flaw of negating the sufficient condition is equivalent to sufficient/necessary confusion.
Argument: A -> B
Flaw of Denying Sufficient: /A -> /B when contraposed is just B -> A
2. Since they are interchangeable, the alternative phrasing for A in the lesson is just saying that the arg negated the sufficient condition
Arg confuses that under certain conditions (A) an action will be taken (B) (A->B) with a claim that in the absence of that condition (/A) that action won't be taken (/B) (/A -> /B). Contrapose back, it becomes B -> A
This might not be new info but hope it helps anyone that might have initially overlooked this like I did.
"I'm speechless. I feel like it's my birthday." I felt that to my core.
@LSATbae123 fr
55 seconds off target but i DONT CARE i got it right ive been struggling with this wholeeee section ahhhhhh
I love seeing ur comments
This gave me joy i am so glad you enjoy my comments i will continue to be crashing out in these comment sections <3
bro u r my king
where are you in your studies now?? i also love seeing ur comments haha. are you in the RC section now? if so, how do you like it?!
Yayyyyy once again this brought me joy! I am currently 29% through the RC section and I am continuing to crash out. There’s a lot more information to retain and comprehend with the long passages compared to LR. The drills are making me lose it a bit but we hang in there. WE GOT THIS!!!!
Just because something is sufficient doesn't make it necessaryyyyyy!!! ; )
The single time my formal logic training made me diagram and actually helped me
It's very helpful knowing that a mistaken negation and mistaken reversal are simply contrapositives of each other
it took me forever to do this question because i saw the word dalton and immediately started hearing a capella in my head #isitoverforme
I was thinking about it right, but misrepresented my thoughts in the answer choice. damn
same
I've gotten the last two questions wrong, but I'm actually more encouraged. I'm starting to see consistent themes in wrong answers. If my answers were consistently inconsistent I'd be much more worried here. Really enjoy the way this curriculum is structured, it highlights my weaknesses in a way that I can independently discover and dissect them.
Same!
POE was the only way i got this tbh
7 seconds lower than target after struggling this whole unit <3
i love this for you
Favoring the proposal: F
Building the airport: B
Argument's premise: If F then B
Argument's conclusion: If /F then /B (this, in a contrapositive form, is if B then F)
Flaw in the argument: Premise said if F then B. It did NOT say if B then F (look! the conclusion wrongfully treated the sufficient condition (if F) as a necessary condition (then F).
that was the greatest way to explain this for me, thank you! feel like the video confused me a lot LOL
this comment made me understand it much more than the video did. Thank you!
Yesss 36 Seconds. Practice, practice, practice Sufficient and Neccesary until it infects your dreams guys! No shame in going back to those initial lessons :)
Got it right through POE