Didn't we just learn in a module the difference between negation and assuming the opposite and how we SHOULDNT be doing that?? So why is "only if their financial problems are solved" equivalent to not having money problems?? Just because you don't have money problems does not necessarily mean your financial problems are solved. I wrote down "Financial problems are solved" as an entirely new category, it wasn't "no money problems." I'm SO incredibly confused now. How is don't have financial problems equate to financial problems being solved?? Solving financial problems implies you had them in the first place, not having financial problems could be you just never had them. Both of them have a CLEAR distinction. So I don't see how the last sentence is a contrapositive to the first... This is also why I was so confused between B and C. Why do they mean the same thing?? Solving serious financial problems and not having serious financial problems are NOT the same thing??
@InderpalSingh Even if you create an entirely new ctaegory for solving financial problems, B is wrong. SFP -> /H, H -> /SFP is serious financial problems in relation to happiness. This alone can be used to determine E to be the correct answer. However, if you create a new conditional for solving them, you will have H -> Solve SFP and /Solve SFP -> /H. In this case, B is still wrong because it confuses sufficiency and necessity. Being happy means you solved your problems, it does not mean solving your problems makes you happy.
May need more clarity. I chose E, but I mapped it out differently with the translation being happy --> financial problems are solved. Based on this, I didn't pick B because if their financial problems are solved they are not considered serious. Group 2 automatically makes the first idea a necessary condition.
Got it right but it took me a while to map it out. Need to work on timing! Hopefully with more practice it becomes more intuitive and I don't need to map it out. I feel like on the LSAT I won't have time to map each one out
Picked B and then did the Blind Review and got it right with E.
When reading option B again, I noticed it said “will be happy”. The stim never said they WOULD be happy, only that they could be if the serious financial problems were solved. This reminded me of some of the earlier topics we studied where we were told to watch out for language that is “too strong” (will be, only, never, etc etc). I didn’t even think of it as confusing sufficiency and necessity till after.
@MnM The fact that we could even spot the issue after the fact is still progress because I’m sure a few months ago, we would have been completely lost as to why we were wrong 😆
Took me longer to answer, but I got it correct the first time. I was worried because the concepts in this module has been challenging for me to wrap my head around. Happy to see it paying off. I cannot wait to master the timing part
could have argued B and E but instantly knew it had to be one of the two (moreso after eliminating the others first and then going back into the passage to find reinforcing language)
I answered wrong the first time then once i did blind review i got it correct, I had to think about "hmm am i switching necessity and sufficient up? and once i thought that that MAY be a possibliblity, I looked back at what I wrote, which idea was on whihc side, adn realized E is the only one that matches the conclusion I drew, with the the sides matching the "if, then" statemnt in answer choice E. Also, my bad for mispelled words, my grammarly is off
I answered this wrong and I was about 1:22 over time. Ugh, I get that with practice my timing and fluency will improve, but this is somewhat discouraging. I got it right during blind review after mapping it out with lawgic. Idk I wish there was quicker way to recognize the conditional logic indicators/have a more intuitive grasp of formal logic
Is there somewhere on 7sage where we can JUST practice diagramming?
This question got me because I flagged "cannot" as an indicator for Group 4, so I negated "cannot be happy" to "be happy" and made it the necessary condition but that stumped me because then I had:
Serious Financial Problems --> / (cannot be happy)
Serious financial problems --> be happy
Which is completely wrong. I only flagged it here though because it just didn't make sense, but in a stim that doesn't intuitively make sense...I'd be more screwed.
I also got a bit tripped up by this at first, but when doing group 4, you should never include 'cannot' in your negation. You only look at what 'cannot' is modifying and negate that.
So in this case, I am singling out being happy as one of the conditions. That would give me these two correct translations.
i don't know if there is one yet, but if not, I highly encourage a video solely on deciphering language of the questions being asked. I didn't know "properly inferred" meant "must be true"...
The lesson says that this LSAT question is written to test "only if" vs "if", but i'm not sure that I can buy that considering you can solve this problem from statement 1 alone.
The cannot indicator gets you the same result if you choose to negate "has serious financial problems" and keep it as the necessary condition as the Group 4 lesson taught (if one is happy, then one does not have serious financial problems). The stimulus breakdown also seems to gloss over this fact, and I'm curious as to why, especially because the wording of the answer includes the specific wording (serious financial problems) of the first sentence, rather than the last sentence (which just says financial problems).
It mentions that you can use the contrapositive, but according to the way that we learned it, there is no set contrapositive because both forms are twins.
Can someone explain in more detail why we can safely assume that not serious financial problem can equal = solved financial problem? I know it's probably obvious but I am so used to being hyper critical on every word of LR I always hesitate to make that connection.
Got both the actual and the BR wrong, but upon review its dang obvious. I'll have to re-read my notes and see if I can't hammer this topic into my brain properly. Not gonna get too bummed about it though. We're all still practicing and its important to celebrate failure as a chance to see our sore spots and hone them. Godspeed, you goobers, and may we all have good luck and fortitude going foreward
41 comments
got it right but it literally took me forever
@cmata Same, same.
Didn't we just learn in a module the difference between negation and assuming the opposite and how we SHOULDNT be doing that?? So why is "only if their financial problems are solved" equivalent to not having money problems?? Just because you don't have money problems does not necessarily mean your financial problems are solved. I wrote down "Financial problems are solved" as an entirely new category, it wasn't "no money problems." I'm SO incredibly confused now. How is don't have financial problems equate to financial problems being solved?? Solving financial problems implies you had them in the first place, not having financial problems could be you just never had them. Both of them have a CLEAR distinction. So I don't see how the last sentence is a contrapositive to the first... This is also why I was so confused between B and C. Why do they mean the same thing?? Solving serious financial problems and not having serious financial problems are NOT the same thing??
@InderpalSingh Even if you create an entirely new ctaegory for solving financial problems, B is wrong. SFP -> /H, H -> /SFP is serious financial problems in relation to happiness. This alone can be used to determine E to be the correct answer. However, if you create a new conditional for solving them, you will have H -> Solve SFP and /Solve SFP -> /H. In this case, B is still wrong because it confuses sufficiency and necessity. Being happy means you solved your problems, it does not mean solving your problems makes you happy.
May need more clarity. I chose E, but I mapped it out differently with the translation being happy --> financial problems are solved. Based on this, I didn't pick B because if their financial problems are solved they are not considered serious. Group 2 automatically makes the first idea a necessary condition.
i cant belive how quick i did this question i love you 7sage
Got it right but it took me a while to map it out. Need to work on timing! Hopefully with more practice it becomes more intuitive and I don't need to map it out. I feel like on the LSAT I won't have time to map each one out
Picked B and then did the Blind Review and got it right with E.
When reading option B again, I noticed it said “will be happy”. The stim never said they WOULD be happy, only that they could be if the serious financial problems were solved. This reminded me of some of the earlier topics we studied where we were told to watch out for language that is “too strong” (will be, only, never, etc etc). I didn’t even think of it as confusing sufficiency and necessity till after.
@HiGigi same!! I knew it was wrong but fixated on the word "solve"😭
@MnM The fact that we could even spot the issue after the fact is still progress because I’m sure a few months ago, we would have been completely lost as to why we were wrong 😆
@HiGigi You are right. A win is a win!😎
I got it right! I've struggled a bit with this module so it felt very rewarding to get this right on the first try!
Got it right but completely overlooked the fact that the first sentence can also be translated into lawgic
45 seconds under time lets go
Took me longer to answer, but I got it correct the first time. I was worried because the concepts in this module has been challenging for me to wrap my head around. Happy to see it paying off. I cannot wait to master the timing part
@mmfisher1 same just need to master the timing part!
could have argued B and E but instantly knew it had to be one of the two (moreso after eliminating the others first and then going back into the passage to find reinforcing language)
I answered wrong the first time then once i did blind review i got it correct, I had to think about "hmm am i switching necessity and sufficient up? and once i thought that that MAY be a possibliblity, I looked back at what I wrote, which idea was on whihc side, adn realized E is the only one that matches the conclusion I drew, with the the sides matching the "if, then" statemnt in answer choice E. Also, my bad for mispelled words, my grammarly is off
I answered this wrong and I was about 1:22 over time. Ugh, I get that with practice my timing and fluency will improve, but this is somewhat discouraging. I got it right during blind review after mapping it out with lawgic. Idk I wish there was quicker way to recognize the conditional logic indicators/have a more intuitive grasp of formal logic
Is there somewhere on 7sage where we can JUST practice diagramming?
This question got me because I flagged "cannot" as an indicator for Group 4, so I negated "cannot be happy" to "be happy" and made it the necessary condition but that stumped me because then I had:
Serious Financial Problems --> / (cannot be happy)
Serious financial problems --> be happy
Which is completely wrong. I only flagged it here though because it just didn't make sense, but in a stim that doesn't intuitively make sense...I'd be more screwed.
@16dnholli
I also got a bit tripped up by this at first, but when doing group 4, you should never include 'cannot' in your negation. You only look at what 'cannot' is modifying and negate that.
So in this case, I am singling out being happy as one of the conditions. That would give me these two correct translations.
Serious financial problems --> /happy
Happy --> /Serious financial problems
Hope this helps.
@kitannasimp Thank you!
Those previous lessons really helped me out. A small confidence boost
I have no idea why I chose C at first but got it right during BR.
finally feeling more confident
i don't know if there is one yet, but if not, I highly encourage a video solely on deciphering language of the questions being asked. I didn't know "properly inferred" meant "must be true"...
clicked the right answer then completely talked myself out of it LMFAO back to the drawing board
@CScheresky and yet, it was one step ahead of what I got. I was between D and E, but completely missed the "only if"...
Tip: Translate each answer choice into Lawgic, then check whether it matches the stimulus translation or its contrapositive.
@D.K._DANDY this is exactly what I did and it made a previously confusing stimulus straightforward.
The lesson says that this LSAT question is written to test "only if" vs "if", but i'm not sure that I can buy that considering you can solve this problem from statement 1 alone.
The cannot indicator gets you the same result if you choose to negate "has serious financial problems" and keep it as the necessary condition as the Group 4 lesson taught (if one is happy, then one does not have serious financial problems). The stimulus breakdown also seems to gloss over this fact, and I'm curious as to why, especially because the wording of the answer includes the specific wording (serious financial problems) of the first sentence, rather than the last sentence (which just says financial problems).
It mentions that you can use the contrapositive, but according to the way that we learned it, there is no set contrapositive because both forms are twins.
Can someone explain in more detail why we can safely assume that not serious financial problem can equal = solved financial problem? I know it's probably obvious but I am so used to being hyper critical on every word of LR I always hesitate to make that connection.
definitely took a while but got the right answer, practice will help to solidify it and make it second nature hopefully!
did anybody use cannot as a indicator??
@StarBrooks Yes! I used SFI -> /H and then H -> /SFI which led me to the conclusion and I saw the correct answer right away
Got both the actual and the BR wrong, but upon review its dang obvious. I'll have to re-read my notes and see if I can't hammer this topic into my brain properly. Not gonna get too bummed about it though. We're all still practicing and its important to celebrate failure as a chance to see our sore spots and hone them. Godspeed, you goobers, and may we all have good luck and fortitude going foreward