Could someone give a quick summary of a 'necessary' cause, in the context of informal/causal logic? My understanding is something i's a necessary cause if the effect is present. But does it need to also be the only necessary cause? Or can there be multiple necessary causes for the same effect/outcome? My guess is yes, but want to check.
@e.wimoine If something is necessary then it must occur for something else to occur - ie. if Juno is a cat, then she is an animal. So the necessary condition here is that she is an animal, she has to be one to be a cat. All cats are animals, not all animals are cats. So, in a similar way, there can also be other necessary factors (other things that Juno the cat has to be). Or in a causal logic example, if Juno the cat doesn't get fed at 6am, then she will be hangry. So it's necessary that if she doesn't get fed, this effect will take place. We aren't given other info like if Juno the cat doesn't get fed at 6am, she will paw at the door ... but it could be true. We only know the relationship of that one cause to effect. All we know is if that cause is happening, the effect has to happen.
I was on the brink of solving this in BR but decided to just go with my original answer. Knew E could be right but didn't know how my original choice was wrong.
I don't understand how the conditional logic was set up and, specifically, how the causal logic would be interpreted. I feel like there are so many gaps between the foundational lessons and these drills, which makes it impossible to incorporate what we learned into our practice. Could someone simplify his response?
Man... I think I am going to become a long-term friend with this problem if I stare at it any longer. I don't know what is more confusing. My girlfriend or this problem. Probably my girlfriend... she is a work of art.
I found the best way to do this question was to focus on what the argument hinges on. Forget flaws for a second. What's the most important distinct feature that the whole thing relies on, which concept? It's about approximate age, which E answers. The others try and trick you by assuming the argument hinges on other details. And B is just confusing grammar, but this stimulus isn't Abstract to Concrete, it's Abstract to Abstract.
I wasn't attracted to answer choice D), but I had a really hard time figuring out why it's wrong. D) says that the argument "presumes, without warrant, that one never approaches a stranger unless one feels comfortable doing so". I suppose it's obvious in retrospect, but the argument doesn't assume this, so right away, this answer choice is descriptively innaccurate. Nowhere does the argument say that in order to approach a stranger, one must feel comfortable appraoching said stranger. Rather, the argument says that feeling comfortable approaching a stranger is necessary for forming long-term friendships. BUT even if it did say that comfort was necessary to approach a stranger, there could still be more than one way to achieve said comfort - it doesn't necessarily have to be similar age.
a stranger being of one's approximate age is sufficient for one to feel comfortable approaching them. BUT that doesn't mean that similar age is necessary to feel comfortable approaching a stranger.
most long term friendships begin because someone felt comfotable approaching a stranger
it does NOT follow that similar age is necessary for a long term friendship to begin because, as outlined above, similar age is NOT necessary to feel comfortable approaching a stranger
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.
145 comments
Correct with 38 seconds to spare, I'm just gonna bask in this victory before getting destroyed soon.
I was so close to choosing B but E just made more sense to me after pondering it over. The one time second guessing myself has paid off.
I didn't choose answer choice E because I was like "there's no way the answer is that easy."
I literally KNEW it was E on the first time i read it but I crossed it off both times bc i said no way its too obvious of an answer.. i stg
This is the dumbest question I've encountered in my life. Law school ain't worth it
This question made no sense but got it right during BR Lmao
i got this one correct in 1:14! Did not feel like a level 5 at all
So if I understand correctly, there is a suf/nec flaw AND a causal flaw, but the correct ac only talks about the causal flaw?
Why are the explanations so longgg
I didn't understand this one at all
Fuck my fucking chuengus life
Could someone give a quick summary of a 'necessary' cause, in the context of informal/causal logic? My understanding is something i's a necessary cause if the effect is present. But does it need to also be the only necessary cause? Or can there be multiple necessary causes for the same effect/outcome? My guess is yes, but want to check.
Any useful examples would be v helpful!
@e.wimoine If something is necessary then it must occur for something else to occur - ie. if Juno is a cat, then she is an animal. So the necessary condition here is that she is an animal, she has to be one to be a cat. All cats are animals, not all animals are cats. So, in a similar way, there can also be other necessary factors (other things that Juno the cat has to be). Or in a causal logic example, if Juno the cat doesn't get fed at 6am, then she will be hangry. So it's necessary that if she doesn't get fed, this effect will take place. We aren't given other info like if Juno the cat doesn't get fed at 6am, she will paw at the door ... but it could be true. We only know the relationship of that one cause to effect. All we know is if that cause is happening, the effect has to happen.
@CeciliaBurton1 lmao I didn't know we could add stickers/gifs on here, slayyy
Longest Explanation, but worth it. Took me an hour but...I do it all for you. J.Y.
@Catpop
I was on the brink of solving this in BR but decided to just go with my original answer. Knew E could be right but didn't know how my original choice was wrong.
I don't understand how the conditional logic was set up and, specifically, how the causal logic would be interpreted. I feel like there are so many gaps between the foundational lessons and these drills, which makes it impossible to incorporate what we learned into our practice. Could someone simplify his response?
Man... I think I am going to become a long-term friend with this problem if I stare at it any longer. I don't know what is more confusing. My girlfriend or this problem. Probably my girlfriend... she is a work of art.
I found the best way to do this question was to focus on what the argument hinges on. Forget flaws for a second. What's the most important distinct feature that the whole thing relies on, which concept? It's about approximate age, which E answers. The others try and trick you by assuming the argument hinges on other details. And B is just confusing grammar, but this stimulus isn't Abstract to Concrete, it's Abstract to Abstract.
Getting a 5 star question right in a minute??? Let's go!!
Picked E 22 seconds ahead very happy with my progress
are we deadass
Broke my streak ://///
I wasn't attracted to answer choice D), but I had a really hard time figuring out why it's wrong. D) says that the argument "presumes, without warrant, that one never approaches a stranger unless one feels comfortable doing so". I suppose it's obvious in retrospect, but the argument doesn't assume this, so right away, this answer choice is descriptively innaccurate. Nowhere does the argument say that in order to approach a stranger, one must feel comfortable appraoching said stranger. Rather, the argument says that feeling comfortable approaching a stranger is necessary for forming long-term friendships. BUT even if it did say that comfort was necessary to approach a stranger, there could still be more than one way to achieve said comfort - it doesn't necessarily have to be similar age.
a stranger being of one's approximate age is sufficient for one to feel comfortable approaching them. BUT that doesn't mean that similar age is necessary to feel comfortable approaching a stranger.
most long term friendships begin because someone felt comfotable approaching a stranger
it does NOT follow that similar age is necessary for a long term friendship to begin because, as outlined above, similar age is NOT necessary to feel comfortable approaching a stranger
@AudreyGilmour helpful, thank you!