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.
@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
I thought I remembered early on that we were told to ignore the indicator if it was negative instead of including it in our diagramming. Am I remembering incorrectly?
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.
On my keyboard the hyphen is to the right of the zero (0) key, and the greater than symbol is the period (.) key with SHIFT on.
Though I find it's easier for me to just write it out. You're allowed scratch paper on test day, so I'm trying to train myself to use that resource effectively.
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.
@LeslieLinarteLuna I did the same thing, and almost second-guessed myself. But I think it works! I'm pretty math-brained so the fact that the two negatives cancel out when applied to the same quantity makes me happy :)
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.
@QuinWestover Yes, when "without" is used in a conditional sense. I usually just turn it into "if not" (same with unless.).
(For an example of "without" NOT being used in a conditional sense: "I went to the store without buying anything." That's not a conditional -- it's just saying (1) i went to the store, and (2) i didn't buy anything).
@Brianna101 I think it is helpful, but make sure not to approach them completely mechanically. You don't want to diagram EVERY single use of "any" or "without", for example. When you get into real LR questions, you'll see that many words can be used in a non-conditional way, and that many arguments don't focus on a "math"-like use of conditionals.
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?
@DouglasNeumeyer I thought the same. I guess we can infer that there is an implicit premise that dragons are 'creatures'. Otherwise, there could be dragons that can fly with weak wings and we could not conclude anything about those dragons from what is given.
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
@MaximoGentini It would be the second version, since "can" doesn't imply "will." (But "will" or "does" does imply "can", which is why #3 looks the way it does.)
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???
@yam i think the idea is that recognizing these patterns will eventually become second nature while reading LSAT questions. the "translation" happens in your head
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.
116 comments
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.
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
Love to see mentions of our wonderful Lisan al-Gaib!
I thought I remembered early on that we were told to ignore the indicator if it was negative instead of including it in our diagramming. Am I remembering incorrectly?
Do you always watch the videos even if your answers are right?
@AmandaMorris02 I do. I think I'm just trying to make sure that I understand why I got it right.
Love how the examples always use dorky stuff, makes it so much easier to follow lol.
@CarlosHernandez03 they know their audience!!
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.
@arae hyphen (-) + greater than (>) = arrow (->)
On my keyboard the hyphen is to the right of the zero (0) key, and the greater than symbol is the period (.) key with SHIFT on.
Though I find it's easier for me to just write it out. You're allowed scratch paper on test day, so I'm trying to train myself to use that resource effectively.
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.
@LeslieLinarteLuna I did the same thing, and almost second-guessed myself. But I think it works! I'm pretty math-brained so the fact that the two negatives cancel out when applied to the same quantity makes me happy :)
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.
@KaraSwider Nice! Good summary.
I'm still having trouble with the no one + without translation in #5. When I try it it always comes out /transformation->/trial.
@QuinWestover Try applying "without" -- turn it into "if not..."
What happens then?
@Kevin_Lin Thanks that helps. Does that always work with without?
@QuinWestover Yes, when "without" is used in a conditional sense. I usually just turn it into "if not" (same with unless.).
(For an example of "without" NOT being used in a conditional sense: "I went to the store without buying anything." That's not a conditional -- it's just saying (1) i went to the store, and (2) i didn't buy anything).
Is it helpful to memorize the group word identifiers?
@Brianna101 I think it is helpful, but make sure not to approach them completely mechanically. You don't want to diagram EVERY single use of "any" or "without", for example. When you get into real LR questions, you'll see that many words can be used in a non-conditional way, and that many arguments don't focus on a "math"-like use of conditionals.
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?
@DouglasNeumeyer I thought the same. I guess we can infer that there is an implicit premise that dragons are 'creatures'. Otherwise, there could be dragons that can fly with weak wings and we could not conclude anything about those dragons from what is given.
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
@MaximoGentini It would be the second version, since "can" doesn't imply "will." (But "will" or "does" does imply "can", which is why #3 looks the way it does.)
why is brave not negated in #3?
@dancingqueen138
Treat "No" when used with "Unless" as a negation
Apply Negate Sufficient rule for "Unless" (Negate and make sufficient)
/brave->/one can venture into Mordor
Make a contrapositive to flow with the chain
//one can venture into Mordor->//brave
Drop double negation
Venture into Mordor->Brave
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???
@yam I had the same question. Watch this podcast on conditionals — it was really helpful to me.
@Paige thank you!
@Paige replying to come back later!
@yam i think the idea is that recognizing these patterns will eventually become second nature while reading LSAT questions. the "translation" happens in your head