@Mitch91 That worked for this question, but that's not a logically accurate. If you're going to include likeliness in a symbol, then a condition that doesn't dictate likeliness should be a different symbol. In other words, "likely-B" and "B" denote two different conditions, so if you're going to write likely-B as "Y," then "B" should be "Z."
Therefore, an accurate way to symbolize this argument while including "likely" in a symbol would be A --> B. ~C. Therefore, ~D. This argument is flawed because the premises tell us nothing about the conclusion.
Your symbolization worked by coincidence, and logic in LSAT (especially this one) is a rudimentary one, so that helped. But you can't treat "likely-B" and "not B" as Y and ~Y.
Just five cents because I specialized in analytic philosophy (which means dealing with these types of symbols a lot) on a graduate level.
Would it have also been correct to eliminate A because they just say "Ben" without confirming he's an Artisan? Cause doesn't it have to say something like: "Ben, who is an artisan,..."?
Student Question: I'm wondering if the “softer” conclusion (using the word “likely” when it’s not necessary to do so) makes the argument weaker or invalid. (I understand that this is one of multiple flaws, and I understand the other flaws but not this one.) In the explanation of the stimulus, J.Y. discusses this as “another mistake” in the passage. However, when there’s a similar mistake in answer choice (D), he says the argument in (D) is valid although the conclusion could have been even stronger. So, is an argument like “If it rains, the ground is wet. It rained. Therefore, the ground is likely wet” valid? Is it weaker than an argument with the revised conclusion “Therefore, the ground is wet”?
Tutor Answer: In the explanation, the "likely" is another mistake in the sense that, if the argument were truly being consistent with the flaw it makes (erroneous contrapositive), we would just go straight to negating the original sufficient condition, which is about a definite fact (the first child was born before the due date). Without getting too much into the weeds, it's important to see that we're not repeating the flaw that makes the whole reasoning wrong: substituting "not born before the due date" for "was not likely to have been born before the due date." In this first case, removing the "likely" changes the original negative condition from a statement about likelihood or probability ("it is likely her second child will be born before the due date") to a statement of fact that doesn't tell us anything about likelihood ("her second child was not born before the due date"). In this case, removing the "likely" changes the nature of the condition. Meanwhile, adding a "likely" to "it is likely that Jackie's first child was not born before its due date" is unnecessary and doesn't fix the flaw, but it also doesn't repeat the original mistake: our prediction, if this were a true contrapositive, would normally be that her first child was definitely not born before the due date; when "likely" is added to a definite statement, it softens it, but the statement is still true.
A good way to think about this is as follows: if we go from a likelihood to a certainty (i.e, we drop a "likely"), we change the nature of the condition, which is not allowed -- but we can modify from a certainty to a likelihood (i.e., add a "likely"), even if it's unnecessary. If your friends told you, "We checked the thermometer, and it's definitely, 100% verified, hot outside," and you replied, "It's likely hot outside," they might look at you strangely, but your statement isn't technically wrong.
This is why D works: the "likely" in the sufficient condition ("If a business is likely to fail") stays the same; we do add a "likely" to the necessary condition ("no one will invest in it"), but since this was originally a certain/definite result, that statement remains true, though we're arbitrarily weakening it. However, if we got rid of the "likely" in the sufficient (i.e., we went from "If a business is likely to fail" to "Pallid Star did fail") then we would have changed the conditional, since even if Pallid Star did fail, we don't know if it met the original condition of being likely to fail -- and the argument in D would be invalid.
#help In the stimulus explanation, I understand the first mistake about the failed attempt to deny the necessary condition. However, if it weren't for that mistake, would it really be flawed to conclude that it's likely that Jackie's first child wasn't born before its due date either (since a likelihood of 100% technically qualifies as "likely")? While "likely" softens the language, the truth of the premises would still guarantee the truth of the conclusion, right?
@Rena12345 According to chatGPT: Validity is about logical force, not truth containment. For example, the following argument isn’t valid: “If it rains, the ground is wet. It rained. Therefore, the ground is likely wet.” Even though “likely wet” includes the possibility of “definitely wet”, it doesn’t assert that, so it’s not valid. A valid argument cannot conclude less than what the premises guarantee, even if a weaker conclusion is still technically compatible with the stronger one. The premises guarantee wetness, not just make it probable, and the conclusion should match the strength of the premises fully
Can someone verify if this explanation is accurate?
I feel like none of this question type can rightly be called one star difficulty. Even if the reasoning itself is simple it's still easy to get bogged down in the answer choices. Yes, it's easy to get correct, but difficult to get it correct with good timing.
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.
84 comments
parallel will be the death of me
00:34 (-00:40)
Can we think of "likely" as "some" here?
@MarisolSanchez I was wondering the same thing, except my thought was that it would be "most." Likely means that it's a better than 50% chance.
YESSSSIIIRRRR
If one thing, the second thing is likely. The second thing did not, so its likely the first was not.
bro why did this take me longer to do than the previous one lol
UNDER 12 SECONDS AND CORRECT FINALLY
The "likely" parts throw me off so much.
Follow the Highlight method!
@OmarAbuaita you have officially convinced me
@OmarAbuaita this is great, thank you!
@OmarAbuaita this is helpful, thank you
@OmarAbuaita Big big fan of highlight method!!!
@OmarAbuaita why have I never thought of this. Thank you!
@OmarAbuaita this is so smart, thank you!
@OmarAbuaita Highlight method has always been OP
@OmarAbuaita i'm cooked if we lose the highlight tool in august
Ok, this one was a little too easy.
Hopefully, I will get one like this on the real LSAT
In this case, I didn't consider "likely" as a qualifier, and it made no difference in my analysis.
STEM:
X so Y
/Y so /X
ANSWERS A and B didn't match. C did, and I stopped.
@Mitch91 That worked for this question, but that's not a logically accurate. If you're going to include likeliness in a symbol, then a condition that doesn't dictate likeliness should be a different symbol. In other words, "likely-B" and "B" denote two different conditions, so if you're going to write likely-B as "Y," then "B" should be "Z."
Therefore, an accurate way to symbolize this argument while including "likely" in a symbol would be A --> B. ~C. Therefore, ~D. This argument is flawed because the premises tell us nothing about the conclusion.
Your symbolization worked by coincidence, and logic in LSAT (especially this one) is a rudimentary one, so that helped. But you can't treat "likely-B" and "not B" as Y and ~Y.
Just five cents because I specialized in analytic philosophy (which means dealing with these types of symbols a lot) on a graduate level.
@suhyahn I got lucky, huh.
I'm not comprehending your whole message, but I just looked at the question again.
Seems that, while I'm given an affect that 1st child has on 2nd child, I have no information about any affect 2nd child has on 1st child.
I think I see how my tactic is unsound.
I needed an easy one after that last one geez
Would it have also been correct to eliminate A because they just say "Ben" without confirming he's an Artisan? Cause doesn't it have to say something like: "Ben, who is an artisan,..."?
Got this right and then saw the difficulty level.
I actually really liked Hawkman II
when actually drilling and doing these questions, are we supposed to actually draw/map out the arguments?
Got to answer C and didn't even read D & E. Knew it was right lets go!
This one seemed too easy that I almost second-guessed myself.
Student Question: I'm wondering if the “softer” conclusion (using the word “likely” when it’s not necessary to do so) makes the argument weaker or invalid. (I understand that this is one of multiple flaws, and I understand the other flaws but not this one.) In the explanation of the stimulus, J.Y. discusses this as “another mistake” in the passage. However, when there’s a similar mistake in answer choice (D), he says the argument in (D) is valid although the conclusion could have been even stronger. So, is an argument like “If it rains, the ground is wet. It rained. Therefore, the ground is likely wet” valid? Is it weaker than an argument with the revised conclusion “Therefore, the ground is wet”?
Tutor Answer: In the explanation, the "likely" is another mistake in the sense that, if the argument were truly being consistent with the flaw it makes (erroneous contrapositive), we would just go straight to negating the original sufficient condition, which is about a definite fact (the first child was born before the due date). Without getting too much into the weeds, it's important to see that we're not repeating the flaw that makes the whole reasoning wrong: substituting "not born before the due date" for "was not likely to have been born before the due date." In this first case, removing the "likely" changes the original negative condition from a statement about likelihood or probability ("it is likely her second child will be born before the due date") to a statement of fact that doesn't tell us anything about likelihood ("her second child was not born before the due date"). In this case, removing the "likely" changes the nature of the condition. Meanwhile, adding a "likely" to "it is likely that Jackie's first child was not born before its due date" is unnecessary and doesn't fix the flaw, but it also doesn't repeat the original mistake: our prediction, if this were a true contrapositive, would normally be that her first child was definitely not born before the due date; when "likely" is added to a definite statement, it softens it, but the statement is still true.
A good way to think about this is as follows: if we go from a likelihood to a certainty (i.e, we drop a "likely"), we change the nature of the condition, which is not allowed -- but we can modify from a certainty to a likelihood (i.e., add a "likely"), even if it's unnecessary. If your friends told you, "We checked the thermometer, and it's definitely, 100% verified, hot outside," and you replied, "It's likely hot outside," they might look at you strangely, but your statement isn't technically wrong.
This is why D works: the "likely" in the sufficient condition ("If a business is likely to fail") stays the same; we do add a "likely" to the necessary condition ("no one will invest in it"), but since this was originally a certain/definite result, that statement remains true, though we're arbitrarily weakening it. However, if we got rid of the "likely" in the sufficient (i.e., we went from "If a business is likely to fail" to "Pallid Star did fail") then we would have changed the conditional, since even if Pallid Star did fail, we don't know if it met the original condition of being likely to fail -- and the argument in D would be invalid.
#help In the stimulus explanation, I understand the first mistake about the failed attempt to deny the necessary condition. However, if it weren't for that mistake, would it really be flawed to conclude that it's likely that Jackie's first child wasn't born before its due date either (since a likelihood of 100% technically qualifies as "likely")? While "likely" softens the language, the truth of the premises would still guarantee the truth of the conclusion, right?
@Rena12345 According to chatGPT: Validity is about logical force, not truth containment. For example, the following argument isn’t valid: “If it rains, the ground is wet. It rained. Therefore, the ground is likely wet.” Even though “likely wet” includes the possibility of “definitely wet”, it doesn’t assert that, so it’s not valid. A valid argument cannot conclude less than what the premises guarantee, even if a weaker conclusion is still technically compatible with the stronger one. The premises guarantee wetness, not just make it probable, and the conclusion should match the strength of the premises fully
Can someone verify if this explanation is accurate?
I feel like none of this question type can rightly be called one star difficulty. Even if the reasoning itself is simple it's still easy to get bogged down in the answer choices. Yes, it's easy to get correct, but difficult to get it correct with good timing.
bye i got this wrong
Got this wrong because i went against my gut urggggggg