Honestly, these videos give you everything you need. The standard lessons run five or six times longer, and it’s easy to get bored or complacent. The shorter format delivers clear, strong explanations without wasting time, so you stay engaged and actually absorb the material.
I feel like calling these videos “Fast Track” doesn’t really do them justice. The name makes it sound gimmicky, like you’re taking a shortcut and won’t learn much from a 45 minute video. In reality, you walk away with a deep understanding. They move quickly, but they also feel more focused and more effective than the regular lesson library.
These videos have been extremely helpful in breaking down questions. What are some of your best tips for timing with any LR questions? I am consistently scoring -0, -1, or -2 untimed, but when timed, my average is -7 or -8. I have only been studying for about a week, but hope to improve speed while maintaining my accuracy.
I'm confused. If the question stem doesn't say to find the "pattern" and be like "the reasoning is most similar to", then the AC could be ordered in a different way than the stimulus did?
I LOVE the second question here. A -> B, assert B, conclude modal possibility A. Not a valid argument in the abstract. Valid once you flesh it out with words and can assume the antecedent isn't self contradictory. Though, I suppose it's not so much a valid conclusion, as it was already possible in any world where B is possible. The task at hand is identifying parallel reasoning, but it's a great example of a form of argument where "might be able to" rescues a failed argument! Just generally, this was an excellent, helpful lesson. It modeled some great ways to quickly simplify the task of grasping the structure of the argument in the stimulus and compare it to 5 answer choices.
@dh2303 of course you are correct, except it is a valid argument in the abstract, merely not a particularly descriptive one. The fact that it includes the qualifier of might does indeed make it logically valid. Or more precisely, not logically invalid.
@RafaelGahan It's not valid in the abstract because of the possibility of A being internally contradictory. A -> B is satisfied for any internally contradictory A. (the conditional is true if A is always false). You can't assert the modal possibility of something internally contradictory. Let A: squares are circles, B: circles are round. If squares are circles then circles are round is a true conditional. Assert 'circles are round' to be true. You cannot conclude "therefore squares might be circles". That is why it's not a valid argument unless you know what A is, and know it's not internally contradictory.
Wait doesn't either or imply both as an option too? I remember in one previous lesson it said John will enroll in either pol100 or eco100. And then the explanation was that it's possible for John to just enroll in one of those classes but it's also possible for John to enroll in both of them.
@WendyCurrington Right, nothing about "or" precludes the possibility of both options being true. Is there a question where this is relevant? If it's #1, the logic is consistent with the idea that "or" could include both.
Note that "A or B" could still in theory exclude the possibility of both depending on the concepts involved. "You're either dead or alive" doesn't mean you can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Took the drill before the lesson and got 3/5 and still only 3/5 after BR. Decided not to look at the answers and went to the video and watched how Kevin approached the question and answers for the 1st question and then how he approached the prompt for the 2nd question and retook the drill again trying to use the same approach. Got a 5/5 and cut my time down significantly (from 15 minutes to 10) since I was originally mapping every question and most answers, up until I got to a part I felt didn't fit. This is usually a question stem I would skip since I know it takes me a lot of time. Thanks Kevin!!
24 comments
Answer choice B is looking so hot right now...
Honestly, these videos give you everything you need. The standard lessons run five or six times longer, and it’s easy to get bored or complacent. The shorter format delivers clear, strong explanations without wasting time, so you stay engaged and actually absorb the material.
I feel like calling these videos “Fast Track” doesn’t really do them justice. The name makes it sound gimmicky, like you’re taking a shortcut and won’t learn much from a 45 minute video. In reality, you walk away with a deep understanding. They move quickly, but they also feel more focused and more effective than the regular lesson library.
These videos have been extremely helpful in breaking down questions. What are some of your best tips for timing with any LR questions? I am consistently scoring -0, -1, or -2 untimed, but when timed, my average is -7 or -8. I have only been studying for about a week, but hope to improve speed while maintaining my accuracy.
@JMeli It's just been a week! Keep practicing (and reviewing) and you'll naturally get better at doing these questions under time.
@Kevin_Lin Sounds good, thank you so much.
I'm confused. If the question stem doesn't say to find the "pattern" and be like "the reasoning is most similar to", then the AC could be ordered in a different way than the stimulus did?
@seungyeon2 The order of the statements never matters. What matters is the logic of the argument.
The stim might be ordered: Premise, conclusion
but the correct answer could be ordered: conclusion, premise
It can still be correct as long as the logic is most similar.
I LOVE the second question here. A -> B, assert B, conclude modal possibility A. Not a valid argument in the abstract. Valid once you flesh it out with words and can assume the antecedent isn't self contradictory. Though, I suppose it's not so much a valid conclusion, as it was already possible in any world where B is possible. The task at hand is identifying parallel reasoning, but it's a great example of a form of argument where "might be able to" rescues a failed argument! Just generally, this was an excellent, helpful lesson. It modeled some great ways to quickly simplify the task of grasping the structure of the argument in the stimulus and compare it to 5 answer choices.
@dh2303 of course you are correct, except it is a valid argument in the abstract, merely not a particularly descriptive one. The fact that it includes the qualifier of might does indeed make it logically valid. Or more precisely, not logically invalid.
@RafaelGahan It's not valid in the abstract because of the possibility of A being internally contradictory. A -> B is satisfied for any internally contradictory A. (the conditional is true if A is always false). You can't assert the modal possibility of something internally contradictory. Let A: squares are circles, B: circles are round. If squares are circles then circles are round is a true conditional. Assert 'circles are round' to be true. You cannot conclude "therefore squares might be circles". That is why it's not a valid argument unless you know what A is, and know it's not internally contradictory.
Is there a way to quickly find the video lessons for the questions covered in this video?
@dnewsome100 You can click into the drill that's linked in the summary above the video: https://7sage.com/drills/build/drlt_031krgxiePYApsG7lALaM6
@Kevin_Lin wow I completely missed that. Thanks!
Wait doesn't either or imply both as an option too? I remember in one previous lesson it said John will enroll in either pol100 or eco100. And then the explanation was that it's possible for John to just enroll in one of those classes but it's also possible for John to enroll in both of them.
@WendyCurrington Right, nothing about "or" precludes the possibility of both options being true. Is there a question where this is relevant? If it's #1, the logic is consistent with the idea that "or" could include both.
Note that "A or B" could still in theory exclude the possibility of both depending on the concepts involved. "You're either dead or alive" doesn't mean you can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Kevin would you be able to to fast track lessons on conditional logic and causation?
@JannnnnnnLam Something's in the works
@Kevin_Lin when it will be released?
@Lidiia Unfortunately it'll probably be at least 2 more weeks. It's going to be something on YouTube.
@Kevin_Lin So exciting!! What is the YouTube channel name so I can keep an eye out?
@Kevin_Lin has a fast track on conditional logic been released? Where should we look for that video?
@charlenehansen It's this: https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-logic-in-30-minutes
We'll probably make a more advanced one down the line.
Super useful! thanks so much Kevin!!
Took the drill before the lesson and got 3/5 and still only 3/5 after BR. Decided not to look at the answers and went to the video and watched how Kevin approached the question and answers for the 1st question and then how he approached the prompt for the 2nd question and retook the drill again trying to use the same approach. Got a 5/5 and cut my time down significantly (from 15 minutes to 10) since I was originally mapping every question and most answers, up until I got to a part I felt didn't fit. This is usually a question stem I would skip since I know it takes me a lot of time. Thanks Kevin!!