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?
Can someone help me with Q3? I don't get why Q3 first premise is pure heart -> lift, instead of the opposite. The video said that we assume there's an "all" in front of being, but how do we know it's not "only" instead of "all"? For me "only" also makes sense, too. And when I think about it, you need to be pure heart to lift it; if you're not, then you can't, that's why I wrote "pure heart" as the superset. If "pure heart" is the set, then doesn't that mean, if someone is "not pure heart", they will be able to lift it too?
This might be a strange way of thinking, but for 5 I was not convinced that "extensive training" means there's nothing left to learn. I thought that implication was too weak, so my chain did not include it. I understand the explanation, but does that apply to any statement that a main concept matches? Even if the first concept and last concept does not make sense in the whole chain? Is it just considered a weak argument, but still valid? Am I getting too caught up in semantics? Thanks!
Did anyone else struggle on the last statement of questions #5 stating , those to can’t do 9th level spells need more training. I wholeheartedly believed that the can’t was implying “cannot” which signals a Necessary conditions you must negate according to group 4? Just something that tripped m up. Can someone shed a light on why this wasn’t the case?
confused on how for q3 being pure of heart comes after being worthy? it seems like it is necessary to be pure of heart in order to be worthy not that being worthy leads to being pure of heart
The reasoning for Q4 could also be applied for Q2.
For example, if this were a MBT question - I'm not sure that you can make the leap that "avoided training" and "well-trained" are necessarily the same thing. It is plausible that you can be well-trained and still avoid training, thus not reaching your full potential while still being evolved (i.e. Charmeleon - as it's neither Charmander nor Charizard). That deduction could be the thing that causes one to choose a trap answer as opposed to the correct one.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I see "well-trained" as a state and "avoided training" as an action. Someone can be well-trained in something and out of practice because they avoided training, thus not currently in peak form (at their fullest potential).
I dont understand how in 90 secs im supposed to translate this, write it down, write down the contrapositive, read through the answer and solve it. feeling unmotivated... I keep trying, but cant do all that no matter how fast I write to get it down under 40 or so secs to have 40 secs left to read the answers referring to my diagram at 8 seconds an answer.
Hi Kevin!! I hope you've been well. So happy to find this new interface on 7Sage and so much more instruction from you! Please help me on Q4: You normally address situations where there looks to be a logical indicator word that we find isn't being used as one. On Q4, you didn't mention it but I was thrown off by the "can't" in the final sentence! I took it as "cannot," Group 4'd it, and messed up the chain. In other instances it's been clearer when indicator words aren't being used as such, but can you share how I might know in the future that a "can't" isn't to be read as a Group 4 "cannot" when followed by a predicate clause?
I follow the logical reasoning in each chain. However, in this set of questions, it doesn't seem entirely fair to make a distinction in question four about being expected to make those decisions and actually being able to make those decisions, when there is basically the same distinction not being made in question two regarding Pokemon evolving and being capable of evolving. It just seems a bit inconsistent, but maybe I am just overlooking certain nuances in each question that makes the difference distinguishable.
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.
90 comments
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?
Okay, why do we not consider the connection in Q4:
/responsability - /tough decisions
tough decisions - responsability
But we consider this connection in Q5?
/9th level - /learn
learn- 9th level
Can someone help me with Q3? I don't get why Q3 first premise is pure heart -> lift, instead of the opposite. The video said that we assume there's an "all" in front of being, but how do we know it's not "only" instead of "all"? For me "only" also makes sense, too. And when I think about it, you need to be pure heart to lift it; if you're not, then you can't, that's why I wrote "pure heart" as the superset. If "pure heart" is the set, then doesn't that mean, if someone is "not pure heart", they will be able to lift it too?
This might be a strange way of thinking, but for 5 I was not convinced that "extensive training" means there's nothing left to learn. I thought that implication was too weak, so my chain did not include it. I understand the explanation, but does that apply to any statement that a main concept matches? Even if the first concept and last concept does not make sense in the whole chain? Is it just considered a weak argument, but still valid? Am I getting too caught up in semantics? Thanks!
What are some tips if I'm pulling the correct information from the text, but I continue to order them wrongly which is messing up the chain?
Did anyone else struggle on the last statement of questions #5 stating , those to can’t do 9th level spells need more training. I wholeheartedly believed that the can’t was implying “cannot” which signals a Necessary conditions you must negate according to group 4? Just something that tripped m up. Can someone shed a light on why this wasn’t the case?
confused on how for q3 being pure of heart comes after being worthy? it seems like it is necessary to be pure of heart in order to be worthy not that being worthy leads to being pure of heart
The reasoning for Q4 could also be applied for Q2.
For example, if this were a MBT question - I'm not sure that you can make the leap that "avoided training" and "well-trained" are necessarily the same thing. It is plausible that you can be well-trained and still avoid training, thus not reaching your full potential while still being evolved (i.e. Charmeleon - as it's neither Charmander nor Charizard). That deduction could be the thing that causes one to choose a trap answer as opposed to the correct one.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I see "well-trained" as a state and "avoided training" as an action. Someone can be well-trained in something and out of practice because they avoided training, thus not currently in peak form (at their fullest potential).
I still don't understand the difference between the two withouts in q3. Does anyone have any advice on how to know when it's a conditional indicator?
For #5 could it be 9th level -> energy -> Extensive training -> /more to learn ? or does /more to learn have to be in the front?
For question 2, is there something wrong with what I did?
well trained → evolved → stronger in battle → excited trainers
/excited trainers → /stronger in battle → /evolved → /well trained
so:
/not well trained → /stronger in battle or even
/not well trained → /excited trainers
I dont understand how in 90 secs im supposed to translate this, write it down, write down the contrapositive, read through the answer and solve it. feeling unmotivated... I keep trying, but cant do all that no matter how fast I write to get it down under 40 or so secs to have 40 secs left to read the answers referring to my diagram at 8 seconds an answer.
is "can't" not the same thing as "Cannot" in group 4? Confused on q5.
Hi Kevin!! I hope you've been well. So happy to find this new interface on 7Sage and so much more instruction from you! Please help me on Q4: You normally address situations where there looks to be a logical indicator word that we find isn't being used as one. On Q4, you didn't mention it but I was thrown off by the "can't" in the final sentence! I took it as "cannot," Group 4'd it, and messed up the chain. In other instances it's been clearer when indicator words aren't being used as such, but can you share how I might know in the future that a "can't" isn't to be read as a Group 4 "cannot" when followed by a predicate clause?
I follow the logical reasoning in each chain. However, in this set of questions, it doesn't seem entirely fair to make a distinction in question four about being expected to make those decisions and actually being able to make those decisions, when there is basically the same distinction not being made in question two regarding Pokemon evolving and being capable of evolving. It just seems a bit inconsistent, but maybe I am just overlooking certain nuances in each question that makes the difference distinguishable.