Really tripping me up how we are to imply connections between "well trained" and "avoiding training" in Q2 but then not imply connections between "expected to make tough decisions" and "cannot make tough decisions" in Q4 :(
shouldn't question 3 be because you have a pure of heart, therefore you have worthy of power? instead of because you have worthy of power, therefore you have a pure of heart?
How can I better understand when the word "only" is being used as a group 1 indicator vs. a group 2 indicator word? It is throwing me off as I try to do the skill builder for chained conditionals.
Any Pokemon that doesn't reach its full potential must have avoided training. I translated this as:
Pokemon reach full potential -> Avoided Training
Avoided Training -> Pokemon reach full potential
My confusion is in taking the contrapositive as to how saying avoided training is equivalent to well-trained. Couldn't a Pokemon have not avoided training but still also not be well trained?
I guess in other words it doesn't seem obvious to me that simply attending training results in being well-trained.
On question three, would I be able to switch out the without to unless and see it makes sense? "Those who can lift Thor’s hammer can also wield great power unless being corrupted." It does not make sense, so it means without is just there and not negating anything.
Why was the “can’t” in the last sentence of question 5 not treated as “negate and make necessary rule” such as in the Barbie example in Question 4? Shouldn’t it be written as:
In example 5, how do you determine what are separate ideas? I'm confused how "more to learn" is different than "extensive training", but "commanding" is the same as "controlling".
I think question 2 requires an assumption that isn't accounted for. If you don't avoid training, that doesn't mean you have to be well trained. You could just be trained mediocrely. I don't think it makes sense to chain unless you make it clear that not avoiding training means well trained.
I'm always confused when you use a necessary + suff negate term in the same sentence (i.e., no one XYZ unless ABC) do you just negate both and keep it in the same order?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I feel like the reasoning on question 4 (that it's not clear whether being expected to make tough decisions implies having the ability to make touch decisions) could just as easily be applied to question 5. The final statement reads, "Spellcasters who can't cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn." To me, spellcasters would imply a different group from Wizards (this is an assumption, but wizards would likely be a subset of the spellcasters superset) and shouldn't be used to group the two.
So do we or do we not ignore when a conditional uses "no/not/cannot/both"? Because I was under the impression that we should ignore them but I'm not too sure.
Just when I thought I had it...So, for Q3, when do we truly know when to ignore 'without' as an indicator? Is it when there is a sufficient indicator at the beginning?
4
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.
119 comments
oh my I really struggled through this
Welp back to the books
Really tripping me up how we are to imply connections between "well trained" and "avoiding training" in Q2 but then not imply connections between "expected to make tough decisions" and "cannot make tough decisions" in Q4 :(
shouldn't question 3 be because you have a pure of heart, therefore you have worthy of power? instead of because you have worthy of power, therefore you have a pure of heart?
Anyone else feel like Damian Lillard getting the last two right?
(I was a mess questions 1-3 lol)
How can I better understand when the word "only" is being used as a group 1 indicator vs. a group 2 indicator word? It is throwing me off as I try to do the skill builder for chained conditionals.
Does the phrase "no one" indicate a slash (i.e. a negation)
Brutal
I have a question about #2.
Any Pokemon that doesn't reach its full potential must have avoided training. I translated this as:
Pokemon reach full potential-> Avoided TrainingAvoided Training-> Pokemon reach full potentialMy confusion is in taking the contrapositive as to how saying
avoided trainingis equivalent to well-trained. Couldn't a Pokemon have not avoided training but still also not be well trained?I guess in other words it doesn't seem obvious to me that simply attending training results in being well-trained.
wow this explanation was so helpful
On question three, would I be able to switch out the without to unless and see it makes sense? "Those who can lift Thor’s hammer can also wield great power unless being corrupted." It does not make sense, so it means without is just there and not negating anything.
Why was the “can’t” in the last sentence of question 5 not treated as “negate and make necessary rule” such as in the Barbie example in Question 4? Shouldn’t it be written as:
More to learn -> /(9th level)?
Since “can’t” is a negate and necessary rule?
4/5 the second round
In example 5, how do you determine what are separate ideas? I'm confused how "more to learn" is different than "extensive training", but "commanding" is the same as "controlling".
I think question 2 requires an assumption that isn't accounted for. If you don't avoid training, that doesn't mean you have to be well trained. You could just be trained mediocrely. I don't think it makes sense to chain unless you make it clear that not avoiding training means well trained.
I'm always confused when you use a necessary + suff negate term in the same sentence (i.e., no one XYZ unless ABC) do you just negate both and keep it in the same order?
Why would I be made to believe that spellcasters are wizards?
does this get more intuitive with more practice, because right now I cant grasp it
I thought I understood but now it's clear I do not
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I feel like the reasoning on question 4 (that it's not clear whether being expected to make tough decisions implies having the ability to make touch decisions) could just as easily be applied to question 5. The final statement reads, "Spellcasters who can't cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn." To me, spellcasters would imply a different group from Wizards (this is an assumption, but wizards would likely be a subset of the spellcasters superset) and shouldn't be used to group the two.
This section and the previous section of chaining conditionals, I have not gotten a single one right. Is that concerning? What should I do?
So do we or do we not ignore when a conditional uses "no/not/cannot/both"? Because I was under the impression that we should ignore them but I'm not too sure.
Q3: Feels like a really big jump in assumption that from getting the last conditional of
worthy-->pure heart
that it tell us that because "pure heart" started the chain of conditionals, that we should move "worthy" all the way to the left of the chain.
Very confused why Q3 sentence one has "pure heart" as the necessary condition, rather than the sufficient...
Just when I thought I had it...So, for Q3, when do we truly know when to ignore 'without' as an indicator? Is it when there is a sufficient indicator at the beginning?