What if there were an answer choice that wasn't causal but nonetheless committed the same flaw of negating the sufficient condition (A→B, therefore, /A→/B)?
I was so confused on this and it was annoying b/c it was so simple. I couldnt find the right answer and then went over again and realized I inccorectly mapped out B from the "must" indicator. The stim is A--->B /A----->/B, I had B mapped out as A----B /B---->/A and I was like wtf till I realzied the must and swapped it to /A---->/B and then made sense to why B is correct. The incorrect mapping is AC A.
I'm having trouble figuring out whether the stimulus is conditional logic or causal logic, because I initially thought this stimulus was conditional. Is there a way to distinguish between the two, or are there cases in which a stimulus can be both conditional and causal?
If someone told you that they didn't have a hangover this morning, would you automatically conclude they didn't touch alcohol last night? Obviously not. I had a liver of steel as a college student and simply did not get hangovers.
Similarly, if I told you that I drank alcohol, you cannot conclude that I will definitively experience a hangover.
Now let's look at sufficient causes.
drinking a handle of vodka (sufficient cause) → alcohol poisoning (effect)
Makes sense, right? Now unless you're superhuman, if you did NOT go to the ER then you can logically conclude that you did NOT drink an entire handle of vodka.
After some consideration, I realized that B is correct bc 'must' is a positive necessary indicator so the order of things is taste good --> right amount of flour
#feedback: please upload a lesson in the foundation syllabus on necessary cause and sufficient cause. It is confusing, and I am forced to make my own assumptions for the question where such causal language is used.
there are doing a mistaken negation (mistaking sufficiency for necessity)
I think for a quick shallow review one can easily get rid of C, D, E. It gets difficult between A and B.
You can solve this by quickly graphing one of the answers if its wrong just chose the other without graphing. In this case I graphed AC B.
Premise: G (TASTE GOOD) --> F (RIGHT AMT OF FLOUR)
Conclusion: /G ---> /F
this perfectly matches the structure of the stimulus and made me chose this answer. It's honestly very difficult to answers these without graphing so def would reccomend eliminating 2-3 on initial review without graphing than go and graph one that you truly think seems more right from the remaning AC's as quick as possible in hopes that it is the right one.
Not me doing a little dance after getting 4 questions right so far and I thought my formal logic skills were weak maybe I will be humbled in the future but time to dance for now.
i want to make sure so with necessary causes, absence of effect does not imply absence of cause. With sufficiency causes, it is true that absence of cause does not imply absence of effect. I just wanna make sure I have this right.
#feedback for us taking notes, it would be really helpful to have a written "review" section of each lesson like the earlier LR lessons did. Definitely helps make sure I know what to internalize and understand
#feedback There is a slight spelling mistake in this section that is highlighted: “bread that doesn’t have a first crust must not have been baked at the right temperature.” I believe it should say "firm" not "first"
#feedback I understand these are lessons, however, it will be more helpful from experience using other sites and my progress in general if we can attempt the question before the lesson.
25
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
47 comments
is there a lesson that shows the difference between causal and conditional?
i love you j.y. from 7sage, thanks for encouraging me to be over-confident. #parasocialrelationship
eaaaasy
What if there were an answer choice that wasn't causal but nonetheless committed the same flaw of negating the sufficient condition (A→B, therefore, /A→/B)?
#feedback is there a way to quickly see the correct answer on this new site? May have missed it, thank you
I was so confused on this and it was annoying b/c it was so simple. I couldnt find the right answer and then went over again and realized I inccorectly mapped out B from the "must" indicator. The stim is A--->B /A----->/B, I had B mapped out as A----B /B---->/A and I was like wtf till I realzied the must and swapped it to /A---->/B and then made sense to why B is correct. The incorrect mapping is AC A.
Can someone please explain why A is wrong and B is right. This is how I mapped it out:
Question:
Healthy Bones -> Sufficient Calcium (A->B)
Not Healthy Bones -> Not Sufficient Calcium (NOT A -> NOT B)
For answer choice A:
Firm crust -> baked at right temp (A->B)
Not baked at right temp -> not firm crust (Not B->Not A)
For answer choice B:
Right amount of flour -> taste good (A->B)
Does not taste good -> not right amount of flour (Not B->Not A)
are these not the same?
I'm having trouble figuring out whether the stimulus is conditional logic or causal logic, because I initially thought this stimulus was conditional. Is there a way to distinguish between the two, or are there cases in which a stimulus can be both conditional and causal?
I don't see the difference between A and B...I thought it was A based that it said "If->then"
With conditional causal logic, I like to conceptualize it as drinking alcohol and hangovers.
hangover (effect) → drinking alcohol (necessary cause)
/drinking alcohol → /hangover
If someone told you that they didn't have a hangover this morning, would you automatically conclude they didn't touch alcohol last night? Obviously not. I had a liver of steel as a college student and simply did not get hangovers.
Similarly, if I told you that I drank alcohol, you cannot conclude that I will definitively experience a hangover.
Now let's look at sufficient causes.
drinking a handle of vodka (sufficient cause) → alcohol poisoning (effect)
Makes sense, right? Now unless you're superhuman, if you did NOT go to the ER then you can logically conclude that you did NOT drink an entire handle of vodka.
/alcohol poisoning → /drinking a handle of vodka
After some consideration, I realized that B is correct bc 'must' is a positive necessary indicator so the order of things is taste good --> right amount of flour
B tricked me with grammer, there was a must which indicated necessary.
#feedback: please upload a lesson in the foundation syllabus on necessary cause and sufficient cause. It is confusing, and I am forced to make my own assumptions for the question where such causal language is used.
"in order to"
B tricked me up on the grammar. I see it now.
I graphed the stimulus as
premise = HB (HEALTHY BONES) --> SC (SUFFICIENT CALCIUIM)
Conclusion : /HB --> /SC
there are doing a mistaken negation (mistaking sufficiency for necessity)
I think for a quick shallow review one can easily get rid of C, D, E. It gets difficult between A and B.
You can solve this by quickly graphing one of the answers if its wrong just chose the other without graphing. In this case I graphed AC B.
Premise: G (TASTE GOOD) --> F (RIGHT AMT OF FLOUR)
Conclusion: /G ---> /F
this perfectly matches the structure of the stimulus and made me chose this answer. It's honestly very difficult to answers these without graphing so def would reccomend eliminating 2-3 on initial review without graphing than go and graph one that you truly think seems more right from the remaning AC's as quick as possible in hopes that it is the right one.
Not me doing a little dance after getting 4 questions right so far and I thought my formal logic skills were weak maybe I will be humbled in the future but time to dance for now.
i want to make sure so with necessary causes, absence of effect does not imply absence of cause. With sufficiency causes, it is true that absence of cause does not imply absence of effect. I just wanna make sure I have this right.
I know it's been 100+ lessons but this is probably the first time the sufficiency necessity clicked
still lost on why A isnt the right answer
#feedback for us taking notes, it would be really helpful to have a written "review" section of each lesson like the earlier LR lessons did. Definitely helps make sure I know what to internalize and understand
tbh the distinction between conditional and causal logic is useless for the LSAT. You never need to know that
#feedback There is a slight spelling mistake in this section that is highlighted: “bread that doesn’t have a first crust must not have been baked at the right temperature.” I believe it should say "firm" not "first"
#feedback I understand these are lessons, however, it will be more helpful from experience using other sites and my progress in general if we can attempt the question before the lesson.