@Ada do CondR, MBT, and Inf questions and go to the study plan when they were talking about sufficient and necessity indicators! Remember also that when you line it up, what was sufficient may be necessary for another condition-for example the first question you have
Horrific ——> threatening
Physically dangerous ——> threatening
Revulsion ——> horrific
start seeing what you can line up together:
Revulsion ——> horrific ——> threatening
Do you see how being horrific is sufficient for membership in being threatening but it is necessary to have inspire revulsion?
You can see that if you inspire revulsion, you are threatening
Also try the contrapositive:
/threatening ——> /horrific ——> /revulsion
If you are not threatening then you don’t inspire revulsion.
All that other hooplah when it’s talking about “whether or not something is psychologically dangerous blah blah”, I think is really saying that these qualities don’t preclude or prevent the monster from being threatening if that monster is also physically dangerous. Not of biggest importance right now.
One of the main tricks is the answer will mess up the order of “the line”
For example A:
Any horror-story monster that is threatening is also horrific
Any is a sufficient indicator and what follows is the subject “monster that is threatening”
the predicate is being horrific.
Threatening ——> horrific
We know that being horrific is sufficient for being threatening. Threatening is a necessary condition. A would mess up the line.
Make sure your line is strong, use the contrapositive to bolster defense and knock the answers down that don’t match up! I hope this made sense!
I also dk which ones you got wrong but if I made any sense you can message me and we can go over the three!:)
@VChristian do you mean the answer choice claiming the monster isn’t physically dangerous?
You have two sufficient conditions for a monster to be threatening. You can be horrific and/or you can be physically dangerous. We know the monster isn’t physically dangerous, so that rules out one way to gain membership in the superset. BUT the monster can inspire revulsion. If you can do that, then you are horrific, and being horrific allows you membership into the superset of being threatening.
I drew it like this:
Horrific —> threatening
Physically dangerous —> threatening
Inspires revulsion —> horrific
Inspires revulsion —> horrific —> threatening
These two sufficient conditions are independent of each other so only one is “needed” to trigger the necessary condition. If I’m not physically dangerous and I’m horrific, I can still be threatening.
at first i was trying to rush and make time. I got 1/3. I took the blind review right after and took my time and analyzed the material. got a 3/3. And i actually end of doing them at a good pace.
Basically what I'm saying is don't rush just trust the process you've been making and you're going to automatically process the information faster with practice
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.
120 comments
2/3, it challenging and I took my time buuuuut I sensed the gears in my head actually clicking for once. these forced me to think using lawgic
where I can watch the explanation of this exercise? :(
that first question was tough, but after watching the video i understood it!
@KyleWelch which video? I'm kind of lost :( I wish this set had an explanation video
2/3 that first question was a doozy
2/3 #1 had me windmilling for my life
3/3 correct, but I'm still wayyy over time. Repetition repetition repetition
Stay on your grind. You're going to be a lawyer one day
2/3... #1 stumped me smh
1/3 right and poor timing
0/3 i realize that i am not that great at diagramming :c
2/3 right. The first question really got me stuck.
I'm doing well but taking too long per question
Got 'em all right, but 1 took me almost 6 mins, is that a bad thing, or can it be fixed with a lot more time and practice?
@JiggityJack5 Yes you can improve! Don't give up!
genuinely spent 10 minutes on 3 to get the answer wrong both times idk why that was so hard
Once again, I got the hardest question right but the last two easier ones got me stumped. I guess I'm in the minority, based on the comments.
2/3 - #3 got me...
1 was hard becasue of the onion-layer of conditions, but 2 and 3 were pretty instantly recognizable. got 2/3
first question rlly confused me
0/3 on first try and 3/3 on blind review. What's wrong with myself :(
I got 1/3, what drills do you even do to get better at these subjects? please someone help!
@Ada do CondR, MBT, and Inf questions and go to the study plan when they were talking about sufficient and necessity indicators! Remember also that when you line it up, what was sufficient may be necessary for another condition-for example the first question you have
Horrific ——> threatening
Physically dangerous ——> threatening
Revulsion ——> horrific
start seeing what you can line up together:
Revulsion ——> horrific ——> threatening
Do you see how being horrific is sufficient for membership in being threatening but it is necessary to have inspire revulsion?
You can see that if you inspire revulsion, you are threatening
Also try the contrapositive:
/threatening ——> /horrific ——> /revulsion
If you are not threatening then you don’t inspire revulsion.
All that other hooplah when it’s talking about “whether or not something is psychologically dangerous blah blah”, I think is really saying that these qualities don’t preclude or prevent the monster from being threatening if that monster is also physically dangerous. Not of biggest importance right now.
One of the main tricks is the answer will mess up the order of “the line”
For example A:
Any horror-story monster that is threatening is also horrific
Any is a sufficient indicator and what follows is the subject “monster that is threatening”
the predicate is being horrific.
Threatening ——> horrific
We know that being horrific is sufficient for being threatening. Threatening is a necessary condition. A would mess up the line.
Make sure your line is strong, use the contrapositive to bolster defense and knock the answers down that don’t match up! I hope this made sense!
I also dk which ones you got wrong but if I made any sense you can message me and we can go over the three!:)
@Bbqboi By then why would physically dangerous get taken out
@VChristian do you mean the answer choice claiming the monster isn’t physically dangerous?
You have two sufficient conditions for a monster to be threatening. You can be horrific and/or you can be physically dangerous. We know the monster isn’t physically dangerous, so that rules out one way to gain membership in the superset. BUT the monster can inspire revulsion. If you can do that, then you are horrific, and being horrific allows you membership into the superset of being threatening.
I drew it like this:
Horrific —> threatening
Physically dangerous —> threatening
Inspires revulsion —> horrific
Inspires revulsion —> horrific —> threatening
These two sufficient conditions are independent of each other so only one is “needed” to trigger the necessary condition. If I’m not physically dangerous and I’m horrific, I can still be threatening.
Does this make sense?
at first i was trying to rush and make time. I got 1/3. I took the blind review right after and took my time and analyzed the material. got a 3/3. And i actually end of doing them at a good pace.
Basically what I'm saying is don't rush just trust the process you've been making and you're going to automatically process the information faster with practice
I got only the last one right :(
I got all 3 but overtime :( I think that might be the biggest challenge of converting prep to performance on this test
0/3 chat is it so over for me. I break these down and I feel so stupid for not getting it right.
got all three wrong :/ need to work on this
I guess i need to work on this some more.