Looking for a bit of clarification in #2 on seeing why "Any Pokémon that doesn’t reach its full potential must have avoided training" doesn't mean, to reach full potential --> training (as in this is a requirement for full potential).
Is it that we can't say that because we can only conclude something about those that didn't reach full potential? So: /full potential --> /trained, if you are trained --> you've reached your potential? And then that allows us to draw the conditional chain
im still having a hard time determining which is the sufficient claim and which is the necessary claim. I know in a previous lesson he said that the necessary claim comes after the indicator... am i right?
Is it safe to always interpret "can/capable of" and "~actually~ do/done" as synonymous for the purpose of chaining conditional arguments? (from Pokemon question). In any other context, I would assume that being capable of evolving and actually evolving are two different stories.
"Whenever a Pokémon evolves, it becomes stronger in battle. This possibility is exciting to trainers, but only well-trained Pokémon are capable of evolving. Any Pokémon that doesn’t reach its full potential must have avoided training."
I tried to fit the idea that when it evolves it becomes stronger, but that didn't fit in the chain. Moving forward I have to be careful about not trying to fit everything in a chain, cause some premises wont.
Q3. I originally parsed "without" in the 2nd sentence as a group 3 indicator, thinking it was a conditional rather than descriptive. But it chained up the same. Hmmm....
2nd sentence: Lift → /Corrupt
Chain: Worthy → Pure → Lift → /Corrupt
Question: Does treating "without" as descriptive vs. Group 3 negation change anything here? Video says non‑conditional, but my diagram functionally matched. Thoughts on when to draw the line?
Regarding question 2. "... only well trained pocemon are capable of evolving" (therefore evolve -> well trained. This is very clear). However, "Any pokemon that doesnt reach its full potential must have avoided training." (/full potential -> avoided training). I dont understand why we assume that the negated version of "avoided training" is well trained. After all, the pokemon could be somewhat trained or badly trained. Well trained is not the only option here. I believe the question is confusing negation with opposition: the same error that was highlighted in a previous module. I understand that according to the video explanation this is the most useful way to interpret the conditional, but I just can´t see the logic behind this. Can anyone explain? Thanks
Question 3- first conditional. why is it not "if you can lift it, then you are pure of heart." instead of "if pure heart, then can lift" isn't pure heart necessary to lift?
For #5, I broke the last sentence down by identifying "can't" as a Group 4 negating necessary implicator. Was that wrong? Technically, the Group 4 indicators are "none", "both", "not both", and cannot", so I wonder if my mistake was assuming "can't" and "cannot" were the same.
The video says there is an implicit "all" before spellcasters, but that is not something I thought about when working this question out.
In question 5, I'm confused why we should assume there is an "all" in front of spellcasters (making it group 1) instead of translating with "can't" and using group 4.
I understand it when I watch the video, but when I attempt to do it by myself I always get stuck when trying to chain concepts together. Does anyone maybe have a trick they use? Especially if the statement has a lot of negate statements, I get lost when doing it on my own.
My confusion is where the line is drawn. Take Question 4 where being expected to make tough decisions is different from making them. That logic lead me, in Question 5, to believe that commanding magical energy is different from CONTROLing it. But that's not the case. Determining what can be grouped together seems subjective and where errors will occur.
For question 4, why wasn't the final step of Group 3(negate sufficient) applied--the contrapositive? Seems like the explanation in the video negated (never accept) to (accept), put it in as the sufficient, made (truly conf.) the necessary, but then didn't apply the contrapositive to make it: /(truly conf.) -->/(accept leadership). Explainer then just went on to the next term.
Struggling to understand how this is really going to help on the LSAT as you have no time to go through this process of connecting different statements.
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.
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!
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.
151 comments
Looking for a bit of clarification in #2 on seeing why "Any Pokémon that doesn’t reach its full potential must have avoided training" doesn't mean, to reach full potential --> training (as in this is a requirement for full potential).
Is it that we can't say that because we can only conclude something about those that didn't reach full potential? So: /full potential --> /trained, if you are trained --> you've reached your potential? And then that allows us to draw the conditional chain
im still having a hard time determining which is the sufficient claim and which is the necessary claim. I know in a previous lesson he said that the necessary claim comes after the indicator... am i right?
Is it safe to always interpret "can/capable of" and "~actually~ do/done" as synonymous for the purpose of chaining conditional arguments? (from Pokemon question). In any other context, I would assume that being capable of evolving and actually evolving are two different stories.
4/5 I got question 2 wrong:
"Whenever a Pokémon evolves, it becomes stronger in battle. This possibility is exciting to trainers, but only well-trained Pokémon are capable of evolving. Any Pokémon that doesn’t reach its full potential must have avoided training."
I tried to fit the idea that when it evolves it becomes stronger, but that didn't fit in the chain. Moving forward I have to be careful about not trying to fit everything in a chain, cause some premises wont.
Q3. I originally parsed "without" in the 2nd sentence as a group 3 indicator, thinking it was a conditional rather than descriptive. But it chained up the same. Hmmm....
2nd sentence: Lift → /Corrupt
Chain: Worthy → Pure → Lift → /Corrupt
Question: Does treating "without" as descriptive vs. Group 3 negation change anything here? Video says non‑conditional, but my diagram functionally matched. Thoughts on when to draw the line?
wouldn't question #2 be:
capable of evolving -> well trained -> reach potential
I feel like 'evolve' and 'capable of evolving' are completely different.
Regarding question 2. "... only well trained pocemon are capable of evolving" (therefore evolve -> well trained. This is very clear). However, "Any pokemon that doesnt reach its full potential must have avoided training." (/full potential -> avoided training). I dont understand why we assume that the negated version of "avoided training" is well trained. After all, the pokemon could be somewhat trained or badly trained. Well trained is not the only option here. I believe the question is confusing negation with opposition: the same error that was highlighted in a previous module. I understand that according to the video explanation this is the most useful way to interpret the conditional, but I just can´t see the logic behind this. Can anyone explain? Thanks
Question 3- first conditional. why is it not "if you can lift it, then you are pure of heart." instead of "if pure heart, then can lift" isn't pure heart necessary to lift?
for question two i dont understand how to know to put well trained on the right side of the arrow
For #5, I broke the last sentence down by identifying "can't" as a Group 4 negating necessary implicator. Was that wrong? Technically, the Group 4 indicators are "none", "both", "not both", and cannot", so I wonder if my mistake was assuming "can't" and "cannot" were the same.
The video says there is an implicit "all" before spellcasters, but that is not something I thought about when working this question out.
In question 5, I'm confused why we should assume there is an "all" in front of spellcasters (making it group 1) instead of translating with "can't" and using group 4.
I understand it when I watch the video, but when I attempt to do it by myself I always get stuck when trying to chain concepts together. Does anyone maybe have a trick they use? Especially if the statement has a lot of negate statements, I get lost when doing it on my own.
My confusion is where the line is drawn. Take Question 4 where being expected to make tough decisions is different from making them. That logic lead me, in Question 5, to believe that commanding magical energy is different from CONTROLing it. But that's not the case. Determining what can be grouped together seems subjective and where errors will occur.
on q2. how is the capability of evolving the same thing as evolves?
For question 4, why wasn't the final step of Group 3(negate sufficient) applied--the contrapositive? Seems like the explanation in the video negated (never accept) to (accept), put it in as the sufficient, made (truly conf.) the necessary, but then didn't apply the contrapositive to make it: /(truly conf.) -->/(accept leadership). Explainer then just went on to the next term.
Struggling to understand how this is really going to help on the LSAT as you have no time to go through this process of connecting different statements.
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.