Such a helpful explainer with great take-away tips; thank you Kevin!
One question: in Question 4 re: macaque monkeys, you mentioned that B is easy to negate because you can just take away the "not" in a sentence that is "Subject is not Predicate", ie negated AC becomes "Subject is Predicate".
Is it it always okay to do that, or are there some parameters around when we can do that? (for example, if the Subject is singular not plural)?
Or are there cases where just dropping the "not" may not work how we need it to for a negation test? Ie, where taking a way the "not" needs to be a "some" instead of "all" relationship? ie, "Subject is not Predicate" needs to be negated to "Subject is SOMETIMES Predicate" or "Some Subject(s) are Predicate" to properly evaluate whether it breaks the argument?
Is it wrong to assume in Q2 AC A is too broad as well because it says "Animals" As opposed to the reptile in question? It feels like a subtlety that the argument is not as broad as AC A makes it out to be?
These lessons are incredibly useful, but there has been an issue with it buffering indefinitely very frequently. Is this happening to anyone else, or is this a me problem?
However, I see so many gaps in my ability with NA because of it. haha. This is probably the most difficult concept for me and has been throughout my entire study journey.
Thank you for bringing more clarity to this challenge.
The key takeaways at the end are so helpful. I can understand the questions on their own, but finding patterns in logic is harder to grasp when working on my own. I believe pattern recognition separates the good from the great. this is FANTASTIC.
These are wonderful and really helping me to identify the areas that I need the most practice in. I must say though.....the 'Moses of the hot spring' line really made me laugh.
Super helpful!! Please keep making these fast track videos. I feel like they solidify the core curriculum, and are perfect to watch when I need to review the approach to a specific question type at a high level, and not re-watch question specific lessons.
These are the perfect videos for me. I always struggle to stay alert when the explanations are too long or in depth because I understand the basics. These fast-track videos have helped me understand these questions types a lot better. Please keep making these.
Would greatly appreciate a lesson like this that more broadly goes into the weeds of something like AC (A) vs (D) on #2 -- like an overarching conditional reasoning primer / the way you guys diagram in Kick It Up, etc!
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.
25 comments
Such a helpful explainer with great take-away tips; thank you Kevin!
One question: in Question 4 re: macaque monkeys, you mentioned that B is easy to negate because you can just take away the "not" in a sentence that is "Subject is not Predicate", ie negated AC becomes "Subject is Predicate".
Is it it always okay to do that, or are there some parameters around when we can do that? (for example, if the Subject is singular not plural)?
Or are there cases where just dropping the "not" may not work how we need it to for a negation test? Ie, where taking a way the "not" needs to be a "some" instead of "all" relationship? ie, "Subject is not Predicate" needs to be negated to "Subject is SOMETIMES Predicate" or "Some Subject(s) are Predicate" to properly evaluate whether it breaks the argument?
Is it wrong to assume in Q2 AC A is too broad as well because it says "Animals" As opposed to the reptile in question? It feels like a subtlety that the argument is not as broad as AC A makes it out to be?
WOW 7 hit me luck a truck, Thank you Kevin, you have been so helpful.
HOLYYYY question 6 was not it man.
this is super helpful.
which lesson would you advise is best for becoming a pro at negation?
These lessons are incredibly useful, but there has been an issue with it buffering indefinitely very frequently. Is this happening to anyone else, or is this a me problem?
These lessons are incredible.
However, I see so many gaps in my ability with NA because of it. haha. This is probably the most difficult concept for me and has been throughout my entire study journey.
Thank you for bringing more clarity to this challenge.
I really appreciate these additional lessons.
The key takeaways at the end are so helpful. I can understand the questions on their own, but finding patterns in logic is harder to grasp when working on my own. I believe pattern recognition separates the good from the great. this is FANTASTIC.
#5 C looks pretty good, even after hearing why it's wrong :'(
These are wonderful and really helping me to identify the areas that I need the most practice in. I must say though.....the 'Moses of the hot spring' line really made me laugh.
THANK YOU! This is super helpful!!
This is absolutely superb!
Super helpful!! Please keep making these fast track videos. I feel like they solidify the core curriculum, and are perfect to watch when I need to review the approach to a specific question type at a high level, and not re-watch question specific lessons.
yayyyy new video!!! thank so much Kevin! Just finished this and looking forward to future fast track videos!!!
These are the perfect videos for me. I always struggle to stay alert when the explanations are too long or in depth because I understand the basics. These fast-track videos have helped me understand these questions types a lot better. Please keep making these.
Would greatly appreciate a lesson like this that more broadly goes into the weeds of something like AC (A) vs (D) on #2 -- like an overarching conditional reasoning primer / the way you guys diagram in Kick It Up, etc!
This was incredibly helpful, thank you!!