dumb question here... how are you making the arrow symbol when diagramming? Is there a shortcut that I can use on my keyboard? I find that going back to find the symbol and copy then paste takes a lot of time.
I took a different approach to the indicator "unless" in question #3 and wanted to see if this is also correct.
Since the first phrase, "can venture into Mordor" is already negated, I started with this:
/venture into Mordor --> they are brave
Then I applied the translation rule for group 3 indicators, to the first phrase:
//venture into Mordor --> they are brave
The negations cancel each other out, leaving me with:
venture into Mordor --> they are brave
Would this be correct? The video took a different approach by choosing to apply the translation rule to the second phrase, so I wanted to double check.
I got a little confused on the contrapositive of #4 when thinking about sufficient and necessary conditions, so I wrote out this explanation to clarify my reasoning:
The premises form a conditional chain: if Sherlock Holmes visits the crime scene, he finds clues; if he finds clues, he makes useful deductions; and if he makes useful deductions, he solves the case.
From this chain, we can conclude that visiting the crime scene guarantees solving the case (visit → solve).
Taking the contrapositive of this statement gives us does not solve → does not visit.
This does not assume that visiting the crime scene is the only way to solve a case. It only relies on the fact that visiting the scene is sufficient for solving. Since visiting guarantees solving, if solving did not occur, visiting could not have occurred.
However, if solving did occur, it does not guarantee that he visited the crime scene, because the premises do not state that visiting is necessary for solving.
if the sentence only states that "creatures can fly." How do we know that "famous dragon" is sufficient for "creatures," is it inferred from the usage of "and" in the sentence?
Hi @KevinLin! Quick question I keep grappling with. It's a question about how to diagram "can" in conditional statements. If we had the following stimulus, what would you do?
If you carry the One Ring, then you can/you are capable of venturing into Mordor. If you venture into Mordor, then you are brave.
carry One Ring → can venture into Mordor → venture into Mordor → brave
i got 5/5 really easily, but i just don't see how this will click for me while i'm taking a test. whenever i try to diagram while taking a PT, it takes too much time and contrarily confuses me even more. what do i do???
I feel like I understand these statements and arguments without using Lawgic. I guess I am struggling with understanding the point of Lawgic if I have a good grasp on the intent of an argument, do I need to spend a lot of time understanding Lawgic for the LSAT?
5/5. But here’s what I’ll say. Six months ago I went 2/5. Two months ago I went 3/5. This test is really hard, and it takes time, and time alone, to improve. If you feel discouraged, beaten up, or like you want to curl into a ball and do anything else, trust me, I have been there. It does get better. One piece of advice. Depending on your timeline, try to move at a pace that lets you actually learn. My biggest regret in my studying journey was trying to plow through lessons just to be “done studying for the week.” I highly recommend slowing down. It’s way more about quality than quantity. I hope this tangent helps someone. I seriously mean it. If this made your brain hurt, you are not alone. Take a break, go outside, then try again in an hour. Do not just click next lesson.
For question 2? if I negate loyal companion in my lawgic structure is that the same thing as crossing it out? Or do we have to cross it out? I think I might just be losing my mind.
for the question 1, does using "someone" not differ from using "one"? I thought the final chain made weak sense because "someone" already implies 'some others' who can still use force lightning without negative emotions.
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
95 comments
Love how the examples always use dorky stuff, makes it so much easier to follow lol.
dumb question here... how are you making the arrow symbol when diagramming? Is there a shortcut that I can use on my keyboard? I find that going back to find the symbol and copy then paste takes a lot of time.
I took a different approach to the indicator "unless" in question #3 and wanted to see if this is also correct.
Since the first phrase, "can venture into Mordor" is already negated, I started with this:
/venture into Mordor --> they are brave
Then I applied the translation rule for group 3 indicators, to the first phrase:
//venture into Mordor --> they are brave
The negations cancel each other out, leaving me with:
venture into Mordor --> they are brave
Would this be correct? The video took a different approach by choosing to apply the translation rule to the second phrase, so I wanted to double check.
I got a little confused on the contrapositive of #4 when thinking about sufficient and necessary conditions, so I wrote out this explanation to clarify my reasoning:
The premises form a conditional chain: if Sherlock Holmes visits the crime scene, he finds clues; if he finds clues, he makes useful deductions; and if he makes useful deductions, he solves the case.
From this chain, we can conclude that visiting the crime scene guarantees solving the case (visit → solve).
Taking the contrapositive of this statement gives us does not solve → does not visit.
This does not assume that visiting the crime scene is the only way to solve a case. It only relies on the fact that visiting the scene is sufficient for solving. Since visiting guarantees solving, if solving did not occur, visiting could not have occurred.
However, if solving did occur, it does not guarantee that he visited the crime scene, because the premises do not state that visiting is necessary for solving.
I'm still having trouble with the no one + without translation in #5. When I try it it always comes out /transformation->/trial.
Is it helpful to memorize the group word identifiers?
4/5 tripped up on #4 but when i saw the answer something clicked. Its almost like I found a hidden premise by chaining all the parts together.
Why is there a chained conditional between
Famous Dragons---->Can fly----->powerful wings
if the sentence only states that "creatures can fly." How do we know that "famous dragon" is sufficient for "creatures," is it inferred from the usage of "and" in the sentence?
Hi @KevinLin! Quick question I keep grappling with. It's a question about how to diagram "can" in conditional statements. If we had the following stimulus, what would you do?
If you carry the One Ring, then you can/you are capable of venturing into Mordor. If you venture into Mordor, then you are brave.
carry One Ring → can venture into Mordor → venture into Mordor → brave
OR
carry One Ring → can venture into Mordor
venture into Mordor → brave
why is brave not negated in #3?
this took forever, but 5/5!
5/5 LETS GO!
i got 5/5 really easily, but i just don't see how this will click for me while i'm taking a test. whenever i try to diagram while taking a PT, it takes too much time and contrarily confuses me even more. what do i do???
I feel like I understand these statements and arguments without using Lawgic. I guess I am struggling with understanding the point of Lawgic if I have a good grasp on the intent of an argument, do I need to spend a lot of time understanding Lawgic for the LSAT?
I finally got all 5/5 right!! :)
New voice
5/5
did this section again, and got a better score. but that was after I went back to review. I need more practice to feel confident...
For #5 can I assume the "no one" and "without" cancel out making the chain
WL - Mt - trial - suffer ?
anyone having issues with the video stopping entirely at 10:45??
lisan al gaib
5/5. But here’s what I’ll say. Six months ago I went 2/5. Two months ago I went 3/5. This test is really hard, and it takes time, and time alone, to improve. If you feel discouraged, beaten up, or like you want to curl into a ball and do anything else, trust me, I have been there. It does get better. One piece of advice. Depending on your timeline, try to move at a pace that lets you actually learn. My biggest regret in my studying journey was trying to plow through lessons just to be “done studying for the week.” I highly recommend slowing down. It’s way more about quality than quantity. I hope this tangent helps someone. I seriously mean it. If this made your brain hurt, you are not alone. Take a break, go outside, then try again in an hour. Do not just click next lesson.
Good luck Future Lawyers!
For question 2? if I negate loyal companion in my lawgic structure is that the same thing as crossing it out? Or do we have to cross it out? I think I might just be losing my mind.
For question 2, how were we able to infer that creatures was a referent for dragons?
for the question 1, does using "someone" not differ from using "one"? I thought the final chain made weak sense because "someone" already implies 'some others' who can still use force lightning without negative emotions.