@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,..."?
95 comments
-00:29 !
Woo! First question right under time!
habataitara modoranaii to itte
idk why i commented ts
Gaining some confidence LFG. I wish this was 5* though haha.
@Arman1 me too. exact same timing too lol
-38
-00:20 !
Premyy baby here taking the LSAT HAHAHA
@MarcosGuzman415 according to the stimulus:
If MarcosGuzman415 is the first child and is a premy baby, then it is likely that MarcosGuzman415's younger sibling will be also.
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
@soapster same
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
@OmarAbuaita I just want to say I used this method on the next question and got it right so much faster. thank you for this
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?