Memorizing the indicator words is the key! And in case of "no" and "unless/until" in the same sentence, going with the later made it easy. Took the "no" just as a negation and not group 4.
For #5: regarding the initial claim, I went like this:
Water of Life --> BG's Rituals
Thinking of WL as a subset of the things used in BG's Rituals; it appears to me that the verb "to be" ineluctably functions as a first group indicator, by that meaning that the attribute of the sentence serves the role of neccessary condition, whereas the subject serves the role of sufficient condition.
2 feels weird. At no points does it say that dragons are creatures so to me the first part cant be chained unless I make the assumption that dragons are creatures
#feedback when I pause the video, the text of the video disappears and I just see a white screen. this makes reflecting on the discussed topic and comparing with my work on the above more challenging.
#5. I got the right answer, BUT, did I get to the right answer correctly? I used both rules "in order" for number 5. I diagrammed the word that followed right after the suff./nec. indicator and used the rules for both. Here is how I did it:
"No under can undergo this transformation" = x -> /undergo
"...without faving a trial" = /facing a trial -> y
Put together, and it is "/facing a trial -> /undergo"
Can we do it like this? Am I overthinking? I would really appreciate a response - thank you!
That was a little confusing. So to be clear for question #4, in the first sentence useful deductions is the sufficient condition because it follows immediately after "when". In the sentence "any" is not being used as a sufficient condition indicator, correct?
I must not be clear about how I'm supposed to use this strategy. It is taking an extremely long time to remember every single group, decide on an assignment, translate to Lawgic, do the contrapositive, and then translate back. When it's one sentence, its quick. But a sentence with 3 or 4 indicators, all with different rules? How much time will that take? Are we doing all of this to train our brains to think about these things or is the strategy to do this process during the LSAT? Write everything down and use it? If we are expected to use this strategy, how on earth does anyone get finished with 20 or more questions doing this?
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!
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.
44 comments
It starts to make sense, surprisingly.
Memorizing the indicator words is the key! And in case of "no" and "unless/until" in the same sentence, going with the later made it easy. Took the "no" just as a negation and not group 4.
For #5: regarding the initial claim, I went like this:
Water of Life --> BG's Rituals
Thinking of WL as a subset of the things used in BG's Rituals; it appears to me that the verb "to be" ineluctably functions as a first group indicator, by that meaning that the attribute of the sentence serves the role of neccessary condition, whereas the subject serves the role of sufficient condition.
All cats ARE (to be) mammals.
C --> M
I keep seeing "no" and thinking it is group 4 before continuing and seeing a different indicator such as "without." urgh lol
#1.... I thought the last sentence, However...was the conclusion. Am I wrong?
once I have all the indicators memorized its pretty straight forward.
2 feels weird. At no points does it say that dragons are creatures so to me the first part cant be chained unless I make the assumption that dragons are creatures
5/5 LETS GET IT
#feedback when I pause the video, the text of the video disappears and I just see a white screen. this makes reflecting on the discussed topic and comparing with my work on the above more challenging.
Its really helpful to follow the rules. I have to memorize the trigger words
For question 3. How are you suppose to know which one to go with between unless and no one?
My brain hurts, getting the right Lawgic symbols, but my end results are incorrect.
4/5. The last one was interesting because I ended up coming up with:
Drink water of life -> trial -> suffer -> transformation
I thought it made more sense for the mental transformation to be last because it's a product of trial and suffering.
who else gave up halfway thru :)
I initially struggled with this one but I let a day go by and tried them again and it all made sense.
4/5 The last one was interesting with how the wording through off the order
3/5 ROUGH
woohoo 5/5 :)
this was HARD
For Question 4, would the following be right?
chained:
visits crime scene → finds clues → makes useful deductions → solves any case
/visit crime scene → /find clues →/make useful deductions → /solve any case
conclusions:
visits crime scene → solves any case
/solve any case → /visit crime scene
I didn't flip it around when I negated it so I'm not sure if it's right. Or am I thinking too deeply about it?
Star Wars, LOTR, Sherlock Holmes, and Dune? Love it. Admittedly doing a great job holding my interest here by using all of my favorite series!
Q3 currently has "will" where in the video Q3 uses "must".
#5. I got the right answer, BUT, did I get to the right answer correctly? I used both rules "in order" for number 5. I diagrammed the word that followed right after the suff./nec. indicator and used the rules for both. Here is how I did it:
"No under can undergo this transformation" = x -> /undergo
"...without faving a trial" = /facing a trial -> y
Put together, and it is "/facing a trial -> /undergo"
Can we do it like this? Am I overthinking? I would really appreciate a response - thank you!
That was a little confusing. So to be clear for question #4, in the first sentence useful deductions is the sufficient condition because it follows immediately after "when". In the sentence "any" is not being used as a sufficient condition indicator, correct?
#feedback #help #advice
I must not be clear about how I'm supposed to use this strategy. It is taking an extremely long time to remember every single group, decide on an assignment, translate to Lawgic, do the contrapositive, and then translate back. When it's one sentence, its quick. But a sentence with 3 or 4 indicators, all with different rules? How much time will that take? Are we doing all of this to train our brains to think about these things or is the strategy to do this process during the LSAT? Write everything down and use it? If we are expected to use this strategy, how on earth does anyone get finished with 20 or more questions doing this?