So I followed the structure of the statement and mapped it out as this:
premise: advantages —> ABS —> common
conclusion: advantages —> common
I see in the video that it was mapped completely differently but I still got the right answer… so I guess I’m just wondering if my lawgic translation is still good or not?
@DeborahJimenez I'd be careful! I think you are confusing sufficiency and necessity.
For me, I started with translating the last sentence into Lawgic first because that was the clear conditional statement with indicators. When you do that, you get:
If no advantages --> not common
Which in abbreviated Lawgic is just:
/Advantages --> /Common
As we've also learned, we can take the contrapositive of that Lawgic statement and it should still be true:
Common --> Advantages
Which translates to: If bilateral symmetry is common, then it does confer such advantages.
Then, moving to the rest of the stimulus, we see that Anatomical bilateral symmetry IS common, so it therefore it SHOULD confer such advantages, and we know that is a valid conclusion to make because it follows the contrapositive statement we just derived from the original statement.
Your conclusion "Advantages --> Common" is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the conditional logic we have here. The stimulus isn't saying that if you have this survival advantage then it is a common thing to have, but that's what your Lawgic implies!
I'd be curious to see your mapping that led you to the correct answer, but definitely be careful about making the sufficiency necessity confusion!
I think your incorrect mapping probably stemmed from a misidentification of the conclusion. The conclusion is the second sentence of the stimulus: "therefore, ABS confers survival advantages". The conclusion is not the last sentence and the last sentences should be properly interpreted as the main premise:
@DeborahJimenez If you really wanted ABS to be in your Lawgic translation as a condition (I don't think this is an efficient way of thinking), it should instead look like this:
P1: ABS --> common
P2: /advantages --> /common
Chain from Premises:
ABS --> common --> advantages
Conclusion:
ABS --> advantages
^I prefer the more efficient thinking of ABS as a "dot" in the sets of common traits and confers survival advantage instead of doing the above with ABS in the conditional Lawgic translation as a condition. That said it can be done.
@AnandChoudhary thank you! this really helps a lot :) I’m definitely having problems confusing sufficiency and necessity. I tried to map the statements as a chain (really had to try to make it work which should’ve been a red flag) and I’m shocked as anyone that I got the question right lol. I’m continuing to practice and little by little things are starting to make more sense
@bellaens18 thanks! AI can actually be very helpful in explaining basic LSAT concepts if given the right parameters. As with anything though, it’s always best to do your own reasoning
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!
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.
9 comments
So I followed the structure of the statement and mapped it out as this:
premise: advantages —> ABS —> common
conclusion: advantages —> common
I see in the video that it was mapped completely differently but I still got the right answer… so I guess I’m just wondering if my lawgic translation is still good or not?
@DeborahJimenez I checked with chatgpt and it suggested something helpful so i thought i’d share:
When you see:
“X is common”
“X has feature Y”
Conclusion: “Y explains X” or “X must have Y”
Ask:
👉 Are they treating this like a rule?
If yes, try:
/Y → /common
common
∴ Y (flawed)
@DeborahJimenez I'd be careful! I think you are confusing sufficiency and necessity.
For me, I started with translating the last sentence into Lawgic first because that was the clear conditional statement with indicators. When you do that, you get:
If no advantages --> not common
Which in abbreviated Lawgic is just:
/Advantages --> /Common
As we've also learned, we can take the contrapositive of that Lawgic statement and it should still be true:
Common --> Advantages
Which translates to: If bilateral symmetry is common, then it does confer such advantages.
Then, moving to the rest of the stimulus, we see that Anatomical bilateral symmetry IS common, so it therefore it SHOULD confer such advantages, and we know that is a valid conclusion to make because it follows the contrapositive statement we just derived from the original statement.
Your conclusion "Advantages --> Common" is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the conditional logic we have here. The stimulus isn't saying that if you have this survival advantage then it is a common thing to have, but that's what your Lawgic implies!
I'd be curious to see your mapping that led you to the correct answer, but definitely be careful about making the sufficiency necessity confusion!
@DeborahJimenez I seriously recommend not using chatgpt for the LSAT. it doesnt understand it properly and you will get questions wrong because of it
@DeborahJimenez
I think your incorrect mapping probably stemmed from a misidentification of the conclusion. The conclusion is the second sentence of the stimulus: "therefore, ABS confers survival advantages". The conclusion is not the last sentence and the last sentences should be properly interpreted as the main premise:
/survival advantages --> /common
@DeborahJimenez If you really wanted ABS to be in your Lawgic translation as a condition (I don't think this is an efficient way of thinking), it should instead look like this:
P1: ABS --> common
P2: /advantages --> /common
Chain from Premises:
ABS --> common --> advantages
Conclusion:
ABS --> advantages
^I prefer the more efficient thinking of ABS as a "dot" in the sets of common traits and confers survival advantage instead of doing the above with ABS in the conditional Lawgic translation as a condition. That said it can be done.
@AnandChoudhary thank you! this really helps a lot :) I’m definitely having problems confusing sufficiency and necessity. I tried to map the statements as a chain (really had to try to make it work which should’ve been a red flag) and I’m shocked as anyone that I got the question right lol. I’m continuing to practice and little by little things are starting to make more sense
@bellaens18 thanks! AI can actually be very helpful in explaining basic LSAT concepts if given the right parameters. As with anything though, it’s always best to do your own reasoning
DUB! things are clicking. thanks for adding these!