Good to know that whenever you see two indicators in the same sentence (one of the indicators is ‘no one’, you should use the rule for the second indicator (such as ‘unless’ or ‘without’). It makes me wonder if the approach is still the same when one of the indicators is not ‘no one’. Curious to come across that lesson soon
not a big fan of the inconsistent Lawgic ? Feel like my brain's been trained the last several sessions with using the forward slash (/) to negate a clause and now all of a sudden the lessons are crossing out words to indicate that same thing...
Should I watch the video on these exercises when I get all of the questions correct? I get FOMO and watch them, but I also worry I could spend the time drilling or moving on to a new topic.
can someone explain to me the sherlock holmes question regarding the first sentence "any" and "when"? I put the any in the sufficient because i thought the "when" was a necessary indicator.
@Ripley1979 I did the same thing!! "When" is actually a sufficient indicator (but "only when" is a necessary indicator - it's confusing me too haha).
So, you have two sufficient indicatorss: "any" and "when." That's a little confusing. But according to the video, in this case, "any" is used to give context rather than indicate sufficiency, while "when" is used to indicate sufficiency. Does anyone else have any explanations for why "any" doesn't indicate sufficiency here? I'm still trying to figure that one out myself.
for q5 why do we not diagram the first sentence as a some ? i had WL--some--ritual. then the rest of the stimulus i wrote on its own as the correct answer is. however, im confused as to why that first sentence isn't included in/chained with the rest
@pillow61 You could, but it doesn't connect to anything else. So it doesn't really help to draw it out. The rest of the facts are about what happens if Atreides drinks the WOL. The extra details about what the WOL is used for don't relate to the rest of the chain.
@strawberryicecream The word "no" can act as merely a negation of the concept connected to it. It doesn't always give conditional structure to a sentence.
"If A, then no B." = A --> NOT B
"No B if A" = A --> NOT B
For those, I'm just following the "If" rule.
Contrast that with this:
"No A is B." = If A --> NOT B
So the short answer is that "unless" and "if" take precedence. Treat "no" as a negation of the concept it's connected to. The "no" isn't giving structure to the whole sentnece in the same way that it does in a sentence like, "No A is B".
Hi! I'm confused on when we use the indicator as a part of the idea and when not. for Question 2, in the sentence "no creatures with powerful wings are loyal companions," we didn't use "no" in the video explanation as a negative to either idea, and only added the negation when we applied the translation rule, but in Question 3, we're told to use the "no" in "no one can venture into Mordor" as part of that idea and use it to negate it. Should the rule of thumb be to just not use it to negate the idea and was Question 3 just the exception because there were two indicators?
@duaafaquih I am also confused when he decides to use "no" as an already negated idea, vs not taking it that way. It feels mechanically arbitrary, or he always takes the overall meaning into account when applying the rules.
@ShamilAlizada If you see "if" or "unless" or another indicator, rely on those. But if "no" is the only indicator, then rely on that. "No A is B" = If A, then NOT B.
"No" is giving structure to that whole sentence. It's telling the quantity of As that are B -- none of them.
"No X if Y." Now we have an "if". Rely on that. If Y --> NOT X. The "no" is not giving structure to the sentence; the "if" is.
@AdrianaMendez "every" is a Group 1 conditional indicator! I would treat "every time" the same as "every" and put it into group one, same as "any" & "anytime" or "when" & "whenever".
But rule of thumb, if you think about it conceptually after getting stuck with indicators;
Which sounds more like the sentence given in the Question 4:
"If Sherlock goes to a crime scene, then he will find clues" or
"If Sherlock finds clues, he is visiting a crime scene"
That always helps me out if I'm stuck on sufficient vs necessary by making clear phrasing. Hint: what if he finds clues elsewhere? like interviewing suspects? going to a crime scene doesn't sound very necessary to his ultra clue finding ability!
Is it just me who feels like we made a massive jump from the previous video? Im trying to understand but I dont know what process to follow when I read the stimulus.
for example, for the sith one: I took every to be the conditional for G1, then only if to be G2, so I know every sith lord uses the dark side of the force -> they have strong negative emotion...
okay now that im here contrapositive would be /strong negative emotion -> /uses dark side of the force.
so you want me to then do
SL -> DF -> FL -> SNE wouldnt this then be /SNE /FL -> /SL /DF?
You've got it nailed for "carry ring -> venture into mordor". Then I think you got caught on the "unless".
"No one can venture into Mordor unless they are brave." Our two clauses are: "no one can venture into Mordor" unless "they are brave"
Unless tells us to choose a clause and negate it. Let's negate the Mordor clause into "one can venture into Mordor". Now putting into the sufficient condition spot: M -> brave
if one can venture into Mordor, then they have to be brave. (sounds like it fits our rule that no one can venture unless they are brave)
your chain then becomes: carry ring -> venture into M -> brave!
@TeneishaCraighead No, "unless" is Group 3, where you negate an idea and make that the sufficient condition. You also have to note that "No one can venture into Mordor" essentially functions like /(Mordor) because of the language "no one", so negating that would be //(Mordor), and two negations cancel out, so negating the idea of "No one can venture into Mordor" would make it so "One can venture into Mordor."
With that in mind, let's say the idea we choose to negate is "No one can venture into Mordor." That makes it "One can venture into Mordor" like we established above. So it would translate to: If one can venture into Mordor, then they are brave.
Conversely, if we choose to negate the idea "they are brave," it makes it so "they are not brave."
If they are not brave, they can not venture into Mordor.
Are we always using full phrases to make sure it makes sense? For example, for question 3: we cannot just focus on "venture into Mordor" because then that will ruin the Lawgic drawing as I get: /B->VM which doesn't make sense.. but if I do "no one can venture into Mordor" I get /B-> NOVM (but I get confused because isn't that the same as doing /VM? but we're doing negate sufficient) @Kevin_Lin
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.
142 comments
For question 4, does adding onto the end of the end of the chain basically imply that the first sentence is the conclusion then?
Good to know that whenever you see two indicators in the same sentence (one of the indicators is ‘no one’, you should use the rule for the second indicator (such as ‘unless’ or ‘without’). It makes me wonder if the approach is still the same when one of the indicators is not ‘no one’. Curious to come across that lesson soon
Please solve these questions consistently. Using forward slash and then crossing out the word, causes unnecessary confusion.
okay i finally get it
i do wish we had a drawing pen option on these
If no is present with another indicator rely on that indicator and view no as a simple negation.
If no other indicator is present view no as a NegateNecessary (Group 4)
The video walkthroughs really helped me. Now time to memories all the indicators and groups to make it second nature.
not a big fan of the inconsistent Lawgic ? Feel like my brain's been trained the last several sessions with using the forward slash (/) to negate a clause and now all of a sudden the lessons are crossing out words to indicate that same thing...
famous dragons being a creature is an assumption?
number 5 got me I forgot about the unless/ without rule
@MarcosGuzman415 Don't thinK I know it. And if so, I did not remembered it. Nonetheless, I take the "without" as /, and it worked out.
I almost messed up on 2, for some reason when I read "no creatures with powerful wings" my brain wanted to read it as /powerful wings.
These exercises are super fun, thank you for putting them together!
Should I watch the video on these exercises when I get all of the questions correct? I get FOMO and watch them, but I also worry I could spend the time drilling or moving on to a new topic.
@Ajohnson1 I'd just skip to the ones you weren't confident about (if any). If you were confident about all of them, then it's OK to move on.
im so lost...
@mks i thinks its alot to remember and when to apply for me and im getting some right but others i want to cry bc idk whats going on
can someone explain to me the sherlock holmes question regarding the first sentence "any" and "when"? I put the any in the sufficient because i thought the "when" was a necessary indicator.
@Ripley1979 I did the same thing!! "When" is actually a sufficient indicator (but "only when" is a necessary indicator - it's confusing me too haha).
So, you have two sufficient indicatorss: "any" and "when." That's a little confusing. But according to the video, in this case, "any" is used to give context rather than indicate sufficiency, while "when" is used to indicate sufficiency. Does anyone else have any explanations for why "any" doesn't indicate sufficiency here? I'm still trying to figure that one out myself.
for q5 why do we not diagram the first sentence as a some ? i had WL--some--ritual. then the rest of the stimulus i wrote on its own as the correct answer is. however, im confused as to why that first sentence isn't included in/chained with the rest
@pillow61 You could, but it doesn't connect to anything else. So it doesn't really help to draw it out. The rest of the facts are about what happens if Atreides drinks the WOL. The extra details about what the WOL is used for don't relate to the rest of the chain.
is there a reason as to why it cannot be Paul -> water -> mental transformation -> Trial -> Suffer
@wiky Imo, it's not quite if Paul then drinks water, it's more so if Paul drinks water, then mental transformation
paul & water are part of the same sufficient condition
Question 3
We have (2) indicators. A group 4 indicator ("No one") and a group 3 indicator ("Unless").
Why are we ignoring "no one"? Shoulden't we negate the necessary condition?
For example
No one can [venture into Mordor] unless [they are brave]
(1) If I follow the rule for group 4 indicators, then I have V --> /B or /V --> B
Then, using the rule for group 3 indicators, I will get /V --> /B or B --> V or V --> B or /B --> /V
How am I supposed to know which indicators to follow when analyzing a conditional with more than one group of indicators?
@Kevin_Lin
@strawberryicecream The word "no" can act as merely a negation of the concept connected to it. It doesn't always give conditional structure to a sentence.
"If A, then no B." = A --> NOT B
"No B if A" = A --> NOT B
For those, I'm just following the "If" rule.
Contrast that with this:
"No A is B." = If A --> NOT B
So the short answer is that "unless" and "if" take precedence. Treat "no" as a negation of the concept it's connected to. The "no" isn't giving structure to the whole sentnece in the same way that it does in a sentence like, "No A is B".
Hi! I'm confused on when we use the indicator as a part of the idea and when not. for Question 2, in the sentence "no creatures with powerful wings are loyal companions," we didn't use "no" in the video explanation as a negative to either idea, and only added the negation when we applied the translation rule, but in Question 3, we're told to use the "no" in "no one can venture into Mordor" as part of that idea and use it to negate it. Should the rule of thumb be to just not use it to negate the idea and was Question 3 just the exception because there were two indicators?
@duaafaquih I am also confused when he decides to use "no" as an already negated idea, vs not taking it that way. It feels mechanically arbitrary, or he always takes the overall meaning into account when applying the rules.
@ShamilAlizada If you see "if" or "unless" or another indicator, rely on those. But if "no" is the only indicator, then rely on that. "No A is B" = If A, then NOT B.
"No" is giving structure to that whole sentence. It's telling the quantity of As that are B -- none of them.
"No X if Y." Now we have an "if". Rely on that. If Y --> NOT X. The "no" is not giving structure to the sentence; the "if" is.
@Kevin_Lin That explains a lot! Thank you so much!
I get 5/5 but then the LSAT practice questions come up and I get those wrong :'(
How did we assess "Every time Sherlock Holmes visits a crime scene, he finds clues." to be in the sufficient group?
My mistake here was thinking "Every Time" translated to "always" and thus I considered it to be in Group 2 (Necessary)...
4/5 on this one tho :')
@AdrianaMendez "every" is a Group 1 conditional indicator! I would treat "every time" the same as "every" and put it into group one, same as "any" & "anytime" or "when" & "whenever".
But rule of thumb, if you think about it conceptually after getting stuck with indicators;
Which sounds more like the sentence given in the Question 4:
"If Sherlock goes to a crime scene, then he will find clues" or
"If Sherlock finds clues, he is visiting a crime scene"
That always helps me out if I'm stuck on sufficient vs necessary by making clear phrasing. Hint: what if he finds clues elsewhere? like interviewing suspects? going to a crime scene doesn't sound very necessary to his ultra clue finding ability!
Is it just me who feels like we made a massive jump from the previous video? Im trying to understand but I dont know what process to follow when I read the stimulus.
for example, for the sith one: I took every to be the conditional for G1, then only if to be G2, so I know every sith lord uses the dark side of the force -> they have strong negative emotion...
okay now that im here contrapositive would be /strong negative emotion -> /uses dark side of the force.
so you want me to then do
SL -> DF -> FL -> SNE wouldnt this then be /SNE /FL -> /SL /DF?
Did i do this right??
@JeffreyRamirez number two i think identifies my issue and im not sure how to resolve it.
If is G1, Unless is G2. Someone carries one ring -> venture into mordor, /Venture into M -> Brave.
now that im here, I do the G3 translation rule right? Venture into M -> /Brave?
then what? how do i chain this? when I chain it, my mind almost wants to do
Venture into M -> Brave -> Someone carries ring. I feel extremely lost hahaa
@JeffreyRamirez Breaking down question 3.
You've got it nailed for "carry ring -> venture into mordor". Then I think you got caught on the "unless".
"No one can venture into Mordor unless they are brave." Our two clauses are: "no one can venture into Mordor" unless "they are brave"
Unless tells us to choose a clause and negate it. Let's negate the Mordor clause into "one can venture into Mordor". Now putting into the sufficient condition spot: M -> brave
if one can venture into Mordor, then they have to be brave. (sounds like it fits our rule that no one can venture unless they are brave)
your chain then becomes: carry ring -> venture into M -> brave!
For number 3, I thought the rule said with “unless” you negate and then put that as your necessary condition. Did I get mixed up somewhere?
@TeneishaCraighead No, "unless" is Group 3, where you negate an idea and make that the sufficient condition. You also have to note that "No one can venture into Mordor" essentially functions like /(Mordor) because of the language "no one", so negating that would be //(Mordor), and two negations cancel out, so negating the idea of "No one can venture into Mordor" would make it so "One can venture into Mordor."
With that in mind, let's say the idea we choose to negate is "No one can venture into Mordor." That makes it "One can venture into Mordor" like we established above. So it would translate to: If one can venture into Mordor, then they are brave.
Conversely, if we choose to negate the idea "they are brave," it makes it so "they are not brave."
If they are not brave, they can not venture into Mordor.
Lisan al-Gaib
if it says no one or something along those lines are we just crossing It out or negating it no matter what?
Are we always using full phrases to make sure it makes sense? For example, for question 3: we cannot just focus on "venture into Mordor" because then that will ruin the Lawgic drawing as I get: /B->VM which doesn't make sense.. but if I do "no one can venture into Mordor" I get /B-> NOVM (but I get confused because isn't that the same as doing /VM? but we're doing negate sufficient) @Kevin_Lin
@KimberlyLoki222 "No one can do X unless Y."
Follow the unless rule. So we can think of "unless" as "if not": "If Not Y, no one can do X"
/Y --> /X
or
X --> Y
"No one can venture into M unless they're brave" = If not brave, no one can venture into M
/brave --> can't venture into M
If you can venture into M --> brave
In other words, being brave is necessary for being able to venture into Mordor.
is it best to draw these out vertically..? @Kevin_Lin