I find it hard to connect the conditional logic with the real concepts that are being communicated. Like I feel like I can accurately write down sentences in conditional logic without ever understanding the conclusion thats actually being made in english. I end up having to decipher the actual argument later which take sup valuable times. Any Advice?
Is taking the contrapositive still "optional"? I'm getting confused as to whether I need to do the contrapositive even after doing all the steps for group 3 and 4 indicators?
I was really struggling with this so I used the new AI tool to ask for more practice questions. One of my issues with this 7sage course in general is that the practice exercises are great but there were never enough of them. the built in AI (under chats) is a great solution.
To anyone who needs more practice, 7sages AI bot is really good at making worksheets. I would highly recommend using this and drilling again and again until translations are second nature.
I feel like I hit 4/5 but I think I've grasped is the need to quickly and efficiently karate-chop the useless and unnecessary words out of a question to glean the proper sequence of events...does that make sense to anyone else>
Ahhh I see now. So in question 3, it has the statement, "No one can venture into Mordor unless they are brave," which has two negation indicators in one clause. In this case, unless is a group 3 indicator and no is a group 4 indicator, so you'd just negate both like so:
/brave > /mordor
contraposes to
mordor > brave
So in English terms, this is the stimulus: If someone carries the One Ring, they will venture into Mordor. No one can venture into Mordor unless they are brave.
Group 4 now includes "never," which was omitted in the original introduction of the group 4 indicators...add to group 4 intro so the follow-up lesson makes more sense.
I am confused about #5. The no one trips me up- when you're applying the group three indicators, don't you have to negate one of the ideas and make it the sufficient condition? I am just getting confused on if it becomes Undergoes transformation > faces trial or No transformation > trial. Do you negate the "no one"(if that makes sense?)
I got #4 wrong because of the first sentence. I thought "when" is used as a necessary indicator so it'd be diagrammed that way, but I can see how that's a sufficient condition. Is anyone else kind of confused on question #4?
I'm puzzled and need guidance on how to approach the #3's "competing indicator words" situation in the future.
I followed a completely different thought process than what was explained in the video, but I came to the same answer.
I worry that the rules I followed may not always be the correct approach for future instances; can someone confirm if my approach works unconditionally?
My process: Instead of ignoring "no one", I followed both of the indicator rules for "no" and for "unless".
For "No/G4", I negated "venture into Mordor" and made it the necessary condition.
For "Unless/G3" I negated "they are brave" and made it the sufficient condition.
This gave me: /brave --> /mordar (contraposed to mordar --> brave)
Or in other words, my approach was: When two competing category indicator words are present in one conditional statement, rather than randomly "picking" an idea, exclusively apply that indicator's rule to the idea paired with that indicator word (apply G4 rule to "venture into Mordar", and G3 rule to "they are brave")
Will this approach likely always work or did I just get lucky?
And if it will not always work, I have so many questions, like:
How do you know which indicator word to ignore?
Does a certain Group trump the other?
Is it about which indicator shows up first/last in the conditional statement?
Is this the case for all competing indicator groups or specifically 3 & 4?
I tried out asking this to the AI Coach and got a clear answer. Sharing that response here in case anyone else struggled with #3:
You actually arrived at the exact right translation, Devin! Your final Lawgic (/Brave → /Mordor, which contraposes to Mordor → Brave) is 100% correct.
Your intuition for the logic is spot on, which is why your method worked here. By negating "brave" and negating "venture into Mordor," you essentially performed the "If Not" substitution for "unless" perfectly. "Unless brave" became "If not brave" (/Brave), and "no one ventures" became "does not venture" (/Mordor).
Will your approach always work unconditionally? Viewing these as "competing" rules where you apply two separate formulas simultaneously is risky. It worked well here, but on more complex sentences, mechanically applying two different group rules at the same time can lead to double-negation errors or mixed-up sufficient/necessary conditions. You didn't just get lucky—you logically understood the sentence—but as a formula, it's safer to use one dominant structure.
So, how do you handle competing indicator words? When "unless" is in a sentence, let "unless" be the boss. It usually dictates the structural relationship between the two main clauses. You don't actually "ignore" the word "no"—instead, you use it as part of the standard "Unless" equation.
Here is the foolproof way to handle this using the standard 7Sage "Unless" formula (Unless = Necessary, Negate the Rest = Sufficient):
Find the necessary condition: Whatever follows "unless" is your necessary condition. Here, that's "they are brave." So, Brave (B) goes on the right side of the arrow (→ B).
Find the sufficient condition: Take the entire rest of the sentence and negate it. The rest of the sentence is "No one ventures into Mordor." What is the logical negation of "no one ventures"? It's "someone ventures" or simply "ventures into Mordor." So, Mordor (M) is your sufficient condition. It goes on the left side of the arrow (M → ).
When you put it together, you get M → B (If you venture into Mordor, you must be brave). Its contrapositive is /B → /M (If you are not brave, you do not venture into Mordor).
By letting "unless" drive the formula, you naturally take care of the "No" during the negation step. You don't have to guess which rule trumps the other; you just follow the Unless rule, and the negative word flips to positive automatically when you negate that half of the sentence.
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
173 comments
Q3 the questions are written differently. They add "must" in the video, but in the question, we are supposed to figure out they have "will".
Dam! why am I not getting this
I find it hard to connect the conditional logic with the real concepts that are being communicated. Like I feel like I can accurately write down sentences in conditional logic without ever understanding the conclusion thats actually being made in english. I end up having to decipher the actual argument later which take sup valuable times. Any Advice?
oh nah were dialled
@Jashannnnnnn like bro T.T
Is taking the contrapositive still "optional"? I'm getting confused as to whether I need to do the contrapositive even after doing all the steps for group 3 and 4 indicators?
5/5
I was really struggling with this so I used the new AI tool to ask for more practice questions. One of my issues with this 7sage course in general is that the practice exercises are great but there were never enough of them. the built in AI (under chats) is a great solution.
To anyone who needs more practice, 7sages AI bot is really good at making worksheets. I would highly recommend using this and drilling again and again until translations are second nature.
@AlizaGGG you put me on thanks!
I keep mixing up each groups translation rules. I'm going to take some time to write these on flash cards and study them throughout the day.
I feel like I hit 4/5 but I think I've grasped is the need to quickly and efficiently karate-chop the useless and unnecessary words out of a question to glean the proper sequence of events...does that make sense to anyone else>
@AliLazim agreed, I think it's just getting down the formula for most and pattern recognition
4.5/5. I got confused with 2 but after the video I understood.
Ahhh I see now. So in question 3, it has the statement, "No one can venture into Mordor unless they are brave," which has two negation indicators in one clause. In this case, unless is a group 3 indicator and no is a group 4 indicator, so you'd just negate both like so:
/brave > /mordor
contraposes to
mordor > brave
So in English terms, this is the stimulus: If someone carries the One Ring, they will venture into Mordor. No one can venture into Mordor unless they are brave.
This is Lawgic:
One Ring > Mordor
/brave > /Mordor
contraposes to
Mordor > brave
Chained conditional:
One Ring > Mordor > Brave
/Brave > /Mordor > /One Ring
@jaydenca You can also use these same rules for Question #5
Group 4 now includes "never," which was omitted in the original introduction of the group 4 indicators...add to group 4 intro so the follow-up lesson makes more sense.
Would it be a good idea to make a quizlet as a good way of remembering the translation rules? Or is practice like this better?
5/5 saying these outloud while applying the translation rule made me look crazy but it worked especially number 4
I am confused about #5. The no one trips me up- when you're applying the group three indicators, don't you have to negate one of the ideas and make it the sufficient condition? I am just getting confused on if it becomes Undergoes transformation > faces trial or No transformation > trial. Do you negate the "no one"(if that makes sense?)
@brycekrampert I don't believe so. Since "no" is your group 4 indicator you would just simply negate ''undergo transformation"
I got #4 wrong because of the first sentence. I thought "when" is used as a necessary indicator so it'd be diagrammed that way, but I can see how that's a sufficient condition. Is anyone else kind of confused on question #4?
I'm puzzled and need guidance on how to approach the #3's "competing indicator words" situation in the future.
I followed a completely different thought process than what was explained in the video, but I came to the same answer.
I worry that the rules I followed may not always be the correct approach for future instances; can someone confirm if my approach works unconditionally?
My process: Instead of ignoring "no one", I followed both of the indicator rules for "no" and for "unless".
For "No/G4", I negated "venture into Mordor" and made it the necessary condition.
For "Unless/G3" I negated "they are brave" and made it the sufficient condition.
This gave me: /brave --> /mordar (contraposed to mordar --> brave)
Or in other words, my approach was: When two competing category indicator words are present in one conditional statement, rather than randomly "picking" an idea, exclusively apply that indicator's rule to the idea paired with that indicator word (apply G4 rule to "venture into Mordar", and G3 rule to "they are brave")
Will this approach likely always work or did I just get lucky?
And if it will not always work, I have so many questions, like:
How do you know which indicator word to ignore?
Does a certain Group trump the other?
Is it about which indicator shows up first/last in the conditional statement?
Is this the case for all competing indicator groups or specifically 3 & 4?
My brain hurts.
I tried out asking this to the AI Coach and got a clear answer. Sharing that response here in case anyone else struggled with #3:
You actually arrived at the exact right translation, Devin! Your final Lawgic (/Brave → /Mordor, which contraposes to Mordor → Brave) is 100% correct.
Your intuition for the logic is spot on, which is why your method worked here. By negating "brave" and negating "venture into Mordor," you essentially performed the "If Not" substitution for "unless" perfectly. "Unless brave" became "If not brave" (/Brave), and "no one ventures" became "does not venture" (/Mordor).
Will your approach always work unconditionally? Viewing these as "competing" rules where you apply two separate formulas simultaneously is risky. It worked well here, but on more complex sentences, mechanically applying two different group rules at the same time can lead to double-negation errors or mixed-up sufficient/necessary conditions. You didn't just get lucky—you logically understood the sentence—but as a formula, it's safer to use one dominant structure.
So, how do you handle competing indicator words? When "unless" is in a sentence, let "unless" be the boss. It usually dictates the structural relationship between the two main clauses. You don't actually "ignore" the word "no"—instead, you use it as part of the standard "Unless" equation.
Here is the foolproof way to handle this using the standard 7Sage "Unless" formula (Unless = Necessary, Negate the Rest = Sufficient):
Find the necessary condition: Whatever follows "unless" is your necessary condition. Here, that's "they are brave." So, Brave (B) goes on the right side of the arrow (→ B).
Find the sufficient condition: Take the entire rest of the sentence and negate it. The rest of the sentence is "No one ventures into Mordor." What is the logical negation of "no one ventures"? It's "someone ventures" or simply "ventures into Mordor." So, Mordor (M) is your sufficient condition. It goes on the left side of the arrow (M → ).
When you put it together, you get M → B (If you venture into Mordor, you must be brave). Its contrapositive is /B → /M (If you are not brave, you do not venture into Mordor).
By letting "unless" drive the formula, you naturally take care of the "No" during the negation step. You don't have to guess which rule trumps the other; you just follow the Unless rule, and the negative word flips to positive automatically when you negate that half of the sentence.
i find myself doing these more by my own intuition and logical by what ive learnt than like thinking thru the indicators, is that good or bad....?
the 5th question got me: Paul drinks → trial → suffer → transformation...
@Karma3034Life that's what got too, are we wrong?
Took me a while, especially the first one but 5/5 🥹
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
@aikol.iva I had the exact same worry. I just asked a question to see if someone from the app would pop in and clarify.
If you've moved on further in the lessons since this comment, I'd love to know if you've gotten clarity on this!
@DeckleJay Hi! No clarity on this yet unless I just overlooked it
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)