The shallow dipped part really helped, I was a bit skeptical at first but automatically eliminating a,b,c helped, then examining d to see it's not the same subject and bam, it's e
Messed up on the Actual but got it on the BR. Questions heavy in logic like these guys are my sore spot, but the breakdown in the last video really helped drill to me on how to use Lawgic and Diagramming better. DONT BE DISCOURAGED!! If you get it wrong for the first time like me use it as an opportunity to see a sore spot to practice!!
For B, IF the premises correctly chained up and said "Most birds are migratory and most migratory birds leave by end of Nov", would the conclusion of "few birds remain during winter" be synonymous to "most birds leave by winter" and therefore be analogous to "most auto mechanics understand electronic circuits"? Would there be an issue with "leave by end of Nov" and "remain during winter" and/or would there be an issue of few vs. some? because my understanding is that saying most DO this and some do NOT do this are analogous.
@DeliaCanDoIt! I don't think there is an issue between saying "few" = "not many". In my mind, I do however think there is an issue with your logic because "remaining" is not the opposite of "migrating".
"few birds remain during winter" could mean a bunch of things that aren't migration. what if a ton of birds died from disease? a few would remain after that and most birds wouldn't have migrated. You can't conclude most birds left just because few remain without making an assumption that ruins your validity.
Also, keep in mind that "most birds are migratory" could mean 51% of the total birds are migratory. Then your next premise says "most migratory birds have left" so 51% of our 51% (which comes out to about 25%). That means only 25% of total birds migrate -- so no! we couldn't validly assume few birds (which is both inclusive of migratory and not) migrate.
helped so much to check the mosts in the AC's against the stim and also seeing that auto mechanics and most mechanics were not the same but very similar such like E as opposed to the photographers who had a completely different type of photographers that could not be similar in each has its own uniqueness. Also most migratory birds talked about the same birds twice unlike the stim.
The appreciation for that last lesson is so much, just got this one right with 58 seconds to spare, hopefully i can keep it up but literally went from no idea what i was doing to it clicking so quickly.
One thing that really helped me with this question was highlighting the "mosts" in the stimulus, then highlighting the same mosts in the answers.
I was able to eliminate A, B, and C off the bat. That left me with D and E. E stuck out as the clear answer. I answered with 3 seconds to spare and didn't have to use any lawgic.
Crazy how effective the strategy from the previous lesson was here, got it right extremely quickly. Let's hope its like this for all parallel questions lol.
EDIT: No, I got this wrong. Ping's reduction works. The convention of chaining through a term shift to a superset is what we often mean with, e.g., A -m-> B -m-> C, or even A -> B -m-> C or A -m-> B -> C. I tried to force it by suggesting that 'extensive experience' is a relative term, but that doesn't apply to answer E, so is not credited as the meaning of the stimulus by LSAT writers. Prior note: Ping's model makes the same error the argument does. It happens to get the correct answer, but accidentally. If there was an answer choice, (F), that said most cats are pets, most pet cats are friendly, so most cats are friendly, (E) would be a better answer. The hypothetical (F) answer only fails because of an undistributed middle term. The pet cat argument is C -m-> P -m-> F, therefore C -m-> F. It's not valid, but it's not the argument being made in the stimulus or in answer choice E. You cannot chain up these arguments OR remove the middle term B and make an inference about the relationship between A and C. In classical terms, it's not just that the the middle term is not distributed, it doesn't even connect the two premises. Not in the stimulus, and not in answer choice (E). In both the stimulus and answer choice (E), the premises do not claim B -m-> C. They claim a superset of B -m-> C. With this set of premises, one cannot even claim that most auto mechanics who have extensive experience understand electronic circuits (or that most snow removal companies that run lawn-care services during the summer hire additional workers in the summer). In both cases the middle term (extensive experience/lawn care services) does not connect the two premises. It's a type of equivocation in addition to a failed most chain (undistributed middle).
I was wondering about this! It seems so clear that in the stimulus, auto mechanics w/ EE are NOT the same--and therefore cannot chain up--as mechanics w extensive experience. A bit confused about that.
@SerayaTalbott-Carey coming back to this, I think Ping is correct, and I was importing a requirement that is not necessary, and not part of the chaining requirement. Usually when we chain A -> B -> C, B can be conceptualized as a superset of the B that are A, so it is reasonable for A -m-> B -m-> C to operate in the same way.
Even just doing shallow dipping for the conclusion and premises allowed me to remove three AC's. only had to graph one, which was not the match, so I automatically chose the remaining one, and it was correct.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
181 comments
shallow dip helped SO MUCH
def not my worst question type but i worry about timing
The shallow dipped part really helped, I was a bit skeptical at first but automatically eliminating a,b,c helped, then examining d to see it's not the same subject and bam, it's e
I got it but definitely went cross-eyed in the process :)
Nice
Messed up on the Actual but got it on the BR. Questions heavy in logic like these guys are my sore spot, but the breakdown in the last video really helped drill to me on how to use Lawgic and Diagramming better. DONT BE DISCOURAGED!! If you get it wrong for the first time like me use it as an opportunity to see a sore spot to practice!!
Yeah holy cow this lesson slaps. Was certainly not dominating 4-5 stars like this a couple lessons ago lol
the video prior made this segment 1000% easier with just eliminating
is this a safe place to say i didn't even register that auto mechanics and mechanics are two different concepts
Is FEW synonymous to SOME?
For B, IF the premises correctly chained up and said "Most birds are migratory and most migratory birds leave by end of Nov", would the conclusion of "few birds remain during winter" be synonymous to "most birds leave by winter" and therefore be analogous to "most auto mechanics understand electronic circuits"? Would there be an issue with "leave by end of Nov" and "remain during winter" and/or would there be an issue of few vs. some? because my understanding is that saying most DO this and some do NOT do this are analogous.
@DeliaCanDoIt! I don't think there is an issue between saying "few" = "not many". In my mind, I do however think there is an issue with your logic because "remaining" is not the opposite of "migrating".
"few birds remain during winter" could mean a bunch of things that aren't migration. what if a ton of birds died from disease? a few would remain after that and most birds wouldn't have migrated. You can't conclude most birds left just because few remain without making an assumption that ruins your validity.
Also, keep in mind that "most birds are migratory" could mean 51% of the total birds are migratory. Then your next premise says "most migratory birds have left" so 51% of our 51% (which comes out to about 25%). That means only 25% of total birds migrate -- so no! we couldn't validly assume few birds (which is both inclusive of migratory and not) migrate.
Most A are B, Most B are C, Therefore most A are C = Flawed argument. Look for arguments with Most, Most, Most > Then apply flawed argument.
@besrawi YESSIRRRR
wait this strategy from the lesson helped immensely. still over time but not by Much
helped so much to check the mosts in the AC's against the stim and also seeing that auto mechanics and most mechanics were not the same but very similar such like E as opposed to the photographers who had a completely different type of photographers that could not be similar in each has its own uniqueness. Also most migratory birds talked about the same birds twice unlike the stim.
Wow. Thank you Lord
The appreciation for that last lesson is so much, just got this one right with 58 seconds to spare, hopefully i can keep it up but literally went from no idea what i was doing to it clicking so quickly.
Getting this correct is making me jump for joy
One thing that really helped me with this question was highlighting the "mosts" in the stimulus, then highlighting the same mosts in the answers.
I was able to eliminate A, B, and C off the bat. That left me with D and E. E stuck out as the clear answer. I answered with 3 seconds to spare and didn't have to use any lawgic.
@JessM Same
six seconds over time.
oh boy.
yayay got it right!
THE STRATEGY IS CRAZY EFFECTIVE!!! Just blew my mind and rewired my brain
Crazy how effective the strategy from the previous lesson was here, got it right extremely quickly. Let's hope its like this for all parallel questions lol.
did it under time and got it correct, shallow dip helped a lot wow
EDIT: No, I got this wrong. Ping's reduction works. The convention of chaining through a term shift to a superset is what we often mean with, e.g., A -m-> B -m-> C, or even A -> B -m-> C or A -m-> B -> C. I tried to force it by suggesting that 'extensive experience' is a relative term, but that doesn't apply to answer E, so is not credited as the meaning of the stimulus by LSAT writers. Prior note: Ping's model makes the same error the argument does. It happens to get the correct answer, but accidentally. If there was an answer choice, (F), that said most cats are pets, most pet cats are friendly, so most cats are friendly, (E) would be a better answer. The hypothetical (F) answer only fails because of an undistributed middle term. The pet cat argument is C -m-> P -m-> F, therefore C -m-> F. It's not valid, but it's not the argument being made in the stimulus or in answer choice E. You cannot chain up these arguments OR remove the middle term B and make an inference about the relationship between A and C. In classical terms, it's not just that the the middle term is not distributed, it doesn't even connect the two premises. Not in the stimulus, and not in answer choice (E). In both the stimulus and answer choice (E), the premises do not claim B -m-> C. They claim a superset of B -m-> C. With this set of premises, one cannot even claim that most auto mechanics who have extensive experience understand electronic circuits (or that most snow removal companies that run lawn-care services during the summer hire additional workers in the summer). In both cases the middle term (extensive experience/lawn care services) does not connect the two premises. It's a type of equivocation in addition to a failed most chain (undistributed middle).
I was wondering about this! It seems so clear that in the stimulus, auto mechanics w/ EE are NOT the same--and therefore cannot chain up--as mechanics w extensive experience. A bit confused about that.
@SerayaTalbott-Carey coming back to this, I think Ping is correct, and I was importing a requirement that is not necessary, and not part of the chaining requirement. Usually when we chain A -> B -> C, B can be conceptualized as a superset of the B that are A, so it is reasonable for A -m-> B -m-> C to operate in the same way.
Even just doing shallow dipping for the conclusion and premises allowed me to remove three AC's. only had to graph one, which was not the match, so I automatically chose the remaining one, and it was correct.
@lsatjasg great strategy!