I've been answering these questions like they're "most strongly supported" hence the low score... Is it fair to just identify premise, then conclusion, and close the gap?
I have question about last question parallel principle, you elimanited very fast first two, because they not fit in conditional logic if all A are B, its not meaning that all B are A, but I don't see it in this examples...
@Lidiia In Questions A and B, Because and for are premise indicators, so you could rewrite question B into
Premise: Mary first examined the details of his work record and listened to negative reports from some of his supervisors
Conclusion: Mary acted responsibly in firing John
B > A
But because making a reasonable effort to make sure the information is accurate and complete is the necessary condition/superset, it is possible to fullfill this condition without acting responsibly in one's profeesinal capacity.
@Lidiia It took me about the same time. I think taking time with the foundations is a better method than rushing through for the practice, as you may give yourself extra practice time, but will be less able to understand the "why" when you delve into process of elimination. Ultimately, everyone will have their own pace that works for them and there is no "right" way other than the way that works for you
Wouldn't D be incorrect because the "only when" introduces the necessary condition which would not be our conclusion? Don't we need the necessary clause to be the conclusion ?
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.
9 comments
I've been answering these questions like they're "most strongly supported" hence the low score... Is it fair to just identify premise, then conclusion, and close the gap?
I hate this question type with a passion
I have question about last question parallel principle, you elimanited very fast first two, because they not fit in conditional logic if all A are B, its not meaning that all B are A, but I don't see it in this examples...
@Lidiia In Questions A and B, Because and for are premise indicators, so you could rewrite question B into
Premise: Mary first examined the details of his work record and listened to negative reports from some of his supervisors
Conclusion: Mary acted responsibly in firing John
B > A
But because making a reasonable effort to make sure the information is accurate and complete is the necessary condition/superset, it is possible to fullfill this condition without acting responsibly in one's profeesinal capacity.
is it ok that it took me 3 months just to study all curriculum? and then go in to PT practice? or on average people do it faster?
@Lidiia It took me about the same time. I think taking time with the foundations is a better method than rushing through for the practice, as you may give yourself extra practice time, but will be less able to understand the "why" when you delve into process of elimination. Ultimately, everyone will have their own pace that works for them and there is no "right" way other than the way that works for you
Wouldn't D be incorrect because the "only when" introduces the necessary condition which would not be our conclusion? Don't we need the necessary clause to be the conclusion ?
@EllieBonnette Are you referring to the bus collision problem? If so, we also have to keep in mind the contrapositive.
Premise: I followed rules
Conclusion Should not reprimand me
We'd look for a principle that establishes "If I followed rules, then don't reprimand."
But "If reprimand, then I must not have followed rules" is another way to express that idea.
So "Reprimand only if I didn't follow rules" could be a correct answer. (D) doesn't say that, but the "only if" doesn't automatically make (D) wrong.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you!!