@KeziaH19 i believe so...i struggled a lot at first especially with putting the ideas on the correct sides of the arrows, but after some time i easily have been getting 5/5 on these within 15 minutes total
@SusanLeifker I keep getting confused thinking certain things are indicators when they aren't. I took the "can't" in example 5 as an indicator from Group 4, but I guess it isn't because "can't" is a modifier for the subject, and not indicating between two pieces in a relationship? Is this the reason, does anyone know?
The first "cannot" is part of a modifier of birds. This tells us that the sentence is giving us a fact about birds that can't flap their wings. What do we know about this kind of bird? They cannot fly. But that first "cannot" is not giving a conditional structure to the sentence. The second one, however, is:
How come sometimes it's okay to make an inference on conditional reasoning and sometimes it's not? For example, question two inferred that "avoided training" implies "NOT well-trained" but "reach full potential" does not imply "Pokemon evolved"? I saw the video explanation that "avoided training" suggests /training --> /well-trained, but doesn't that make exactly the sort of assumption we're asked to spot on other types of questions?
@kroper4 I came to the comments for the same thing. The opposite of /(trained) IS NOT (well-trained); on the contrary, per the lesson on distinguishing between opposites v. negations, the opposite of /(trained) would be merely (trained), which could mean (well-trained) but needn’t mean that by necessity.
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.
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.
@EmmaQualyPearson You're correct that "NOT avoid training" does not imply "well trained." However, if a Pokemon is "well-trained," doesn't this imply that the Pokemon did not avoid training?
So, if we know that a Pokemon has evolved, we know it is well-trained, which in turn implies that it did not avoid training, which allows us to conclude that it reaches its full potential.
Here's another example.
All oranges are citrus fruits.
All fruits are healthy.
We can conclude that all oranges are healthy. Even though "fruit" doesn't imply "citrus fruit," we do know that "citrus fruit" implies "fruit." That's why we can make the following chain:
@Kevin_Lin I think to better clear this up, avoided training should be interpreted as a Pokemon that did not train whatsoever. It would be impossible to be well trained if the pokemon avoided training altogether. Then, it would be wise to assume that the stimulus implies that WellTrained → AvoidTraining. This would make the logical chain valid. I think the phrase "avoided training" is a little confusing and ambiguous, as it could imply either that a pokemon avoided some training, or just did not train AT ALL.
@SauceBoss I agree that that would make things less prone to alternate interpretations, but I think the LSAT would judge this language adequate. We can agree to disagree on whether "avoided training" can reasonably be interpreted as "avoided some training, but still received some training." I don't think so, but it actually doesn't really matter right now. This isn't an official LSAT question so we don't have their assessment of right/wrong to decide the issue :P.
If you recognize that one interpretation does allow a chain to be created, that's what matters. You will encounter situations on the LSAT where you might think language can be interpreted in multiple ways, but only 1 of those ways leads to a correct answer. And the LSAT will expect us to understand that one interpretation is the "right" one to take. So it's good that you're examining the precise meaning of language and evaluating whether certain language really implies X or Y or Z. Do not expect, however, the LSAT to always use very clear language designed to help readers avoid misinterpretation. They will regularly use synonyms or other concepts that, according to dictionary definitions, imply other concepts, to keep you on your toes.
Don't take this to mean that your interpretation of "avoided training" is wrong. If I thought the LSAT would regard the question as mistaken I'd acknowledge it and put it on a list for corrections. I'm just not sure that's really the case here, though.
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?
@Mrivera292 from what I'm starting to understand, and I could be wrong, is that the "can't" in question 5 is a modifier of people who cast 9th level spells. So there's people who can and people who can't. So that wouldn't make it an indicator in this question. I've been getting tripped up by the indicator words actually being modifiers quite a bit and wish they would emphasize the difference between them in their explanations.
Group 1 Indicators If, When, Where, All, Any, Every
Rule: Whatever immediately follows the word goes on the LEFT side of the arrow
Group 2 Indicators Only, Only if, Only when, Only where
Rule: Whatever immediately follows the word goes on the RIGHT side of the arrow
Group 3 Indicators Or, Unless, Until, Without, Except
Rule: Whatever immediately follows the word goes on the RIGHT side. Take the other part of the sentence, NEGATE it, and put it on the LEFT side.
Group 4 Indicators No, None, Never
Rule: Whatever immediately follows the word goes on the LEFT side. Take the other part of the sentence, NEGATE it, and put it on the RIGHT side.
This cheat sheet rlly helped me for these :) I'm hoping using this will help me eventually memorize them. Its here for anybody else. Whoever is reading ily have a great day!
Stay focused folks! I view the challenging skill builders as "Brain Boosters" that will strengthen our thought process on how we think about LR questions to improve our overall confidence and understanding by the time we take the real test! Remember we're only going to have roughly 1 min and 27 seconds to read the prompt and make a decision! These more difficult Skill Builders at the minimum puts us in great shape to make an accurate educated guess if all else fails while trying to beat the clock! Lol
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.
@MarcosGuzman415 Those threw me through a loop! It was good practice to see when to use discretion regarding indicator words because my first instinct was to treat line 2 in question 3 like an if/then statement. He says in the lesson that we'll have to think about if the indicator words are denoting something necessary/sufficient. I will definitely need more practice though!
on Q5, " Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn.Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn." Isn't the rule for cannot to pick either idea, then negate the idea, and then make that idea the necessary and the other the sufficient?
@LaneyWilliams Yea but the word "cannot" is included in group 4, if you look in the beginning of the page. Cannot and Can't are the same. I was confused as well. Thank you for asking the question @Him
I came back to this after a long break. I am definitely more comfortable with chaining conditionals like this but it is still hard. This is worth spending time on because this is often how conditionals look on the test: convoluted.
@Hanifa sentence starts with barbies which implies "all" therefore we would not need to follow the group 4 inidcator rules. it confused me too but its just one of those things that comes intuitively with lots of practice.
See, something that really annoys me is how much you can assume two things are the same or different in sentences.
For example, in Question 4 its answer says: "It’s not clear whether being “expected to make tough decisions” implies having the ability to make tough decisions. Maybe you can be expected to make tough decisions, but you’re not actually able to make those decisions." Therefore the two are not chained.
But for Question 1, I originally thought "Clever velociraptors..." and "When a raptor..." might not be the same. Like, someone might say, "It's not clear whether the second sentence specifically talks about "The Clever Velociraptor", because if so, it should say "When THE raptor finds". We might just be talking about any raptors including the stupid ones"
In the same way, Question 5 treats "9th level Wizards command Magical Energy" and "Wizards with training can control magical energy" as a chain. If a reasoning in Question 4 is permitted, then shouldn't it say, "It's not clear whether they are the same. A wizard who can just command an energy may not be equally adept at controlling it".
@kazuhiro35 For the raptor question, "When a raptor..." encompasses all raptors -- that's why it applies to clever velociraptors." "a raptor" doesn't refer to a specific raptor; it's referring generally to raptors.
For #5, the issue is whether the ability to "command" energy implies that you have the ability to "control" it. I think it does, and we can look up definitions to debate about this. But in any case, I don't consider that the point of this exercise. It's about putting you on notice that we are expected to investigate the meanings and implications of concepts. Connections between statements are not always going to stay at "word-matching" level, where you connect if the words are the same, and you don't connect when the words aren't the same. That's what I'd focus on.
@Kevin_Lin That's fair, thanks for your advice. Question 1 was completely my misunderstanding. For Question 5, yes surely the definitions can be debated and as you say, the "word-matching" is not the real focus on the LSAT. I think I was just frustrated by how I failed so much on the "word-matching" specifically in this exercise. Because I was able to do diagrams perfectly in most questions, but Question 5 told me I was wrong solely for the "word-matching" mistake :)
#5, I did not want to assume spellcasters means wizards, so I decided not to include this one as part of the chain. My chain ignored "9th level → more to learn" but otherwise was mostly correct. I wonder if anyone else felt the same way?
@rdpitkajr Yes, I felt the same way. It was hard to make an inference but after some thought I decided to equate the two for the problem based on inference. Not sure that's the best way to go about it.
249 comments
oh my I really struggled through this
1 out 5 sad sad
@JRamirez you'll get there! keep going!
Welp back to the books
does this get more intuitive with more practice, because right now I cant grasp it
@KeziaH19 i believe so...i struggled a lot at first especially with putting the ideas on the correct sides of the arrows, but after some time i easily have been getting 5/5 on these within 15 minutes total
@yam It does. I found that the more I do these the less I need to rely on explicitly writing down these logical structures.
My first question is what has to happen for something to happen? That becomes my necessary condition.
im so lost lol again
Very good tip here: Plural subjects imply the presence of an ALL or ANY statement in front of it, making it a sufficient condition.
"Barbies who do A do B" = "All Barbies who do A do B" = A---->B
I thought I understood but now it's clear I do not
@SusanLeifker I keep getting confused thinking certain things are indicators when they aren't. I took the "can't" in example 5 as an indicator from Group 4, but I guess it isn't because "can't" is a modifier for the subject, and not indicating between two pieces in a relationship? Is this the reason, does anyone know?
@SusanLeifker Examine this example:
The first "cannot" is part of a modifier of birds. This tells us that the sentence is giving us a fact about birds that can't flap their wings. What do we know about this kind of bird? They cannot fly. But that first "cannot" is not giving a conditional structure to the sentence. The second one, however, is:
Birds that can't flap their wings --> NOT fly
@Kevin_Lin that makes a lot of sense! thank you!
@SusanLeifker Seeing it like this helped me:
Birds that cannot flap their wings cannot fly.
If birds cannot flap their wings, then birds cannot fly.
/FW->/F
F->FW
Why do we have to flip to negate/or remove a negate? because that's how math is, if you want to keep the direction of the arrow consistent.
-5<-4
or, 4<5
these exercises make me feel really stupid
Brutal
How come sometimes it's okay to make an inference on conditional reasoning and sometimes it's not? For example, question two inferred that "avoided training" implies "NOT well-trained" but "reach full potential" does not imply "Pokemon evolved"? I saw the video explanation that "avoided training" suggests /training --> /well-trained, but doesn't that make exactly the sort of assumption we're asked to spot on other types of questions?
@kroper4 I came to the comments for the same thing. The opposite of /(trained) IS NOT (well-trained); on the contrary, per the lesson on distinguishing between opposites v. negations, the opposite of /(trained) would be merely (trained), which could mean (well-trained) but needn’t mean that by necessity.
If anyone is struggling like me, copy and paste this page into chatgpt (etc.) to get more practice questions like this. Really helps!
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.
@MayaBehar I did the same. Super confused.
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.
@EmmaQualyPearson You're correct that "NOT avoid training" does not imply "well trained." However, if a Pokemon is "well-trained," doesn't this imply that the Pokemon did not avoid training?
So, if we know that a Pokemon has evolved, we know it is well-trained, which in turn implies that it did not avoid training, which allows us to conclude that it reaches its full potential.
Here's another example.
All oranges are citrus fruits.
All fruits are healthy.
We can conclude that all oranges are healthy. Even though "fruit" doesn't imply "citrus fruit," we do know that "citrus fruit" implies "fruit." That's why we can make the following chain:
orange --> citrus fruit --> healthy
@Kevin_Lin I think to better clear this up, avoided training should be interpreted as a Pokemon that did not train whatsoever. It would be impossible to be well trained if the pokemon avoided training altogether. Then, it would be wise to assume that the stimulus implies that WellTrained →
AvoidTraining. This would make the logical chain valid. I think the phrase "avoided training" is a little confusing and ambiguous, as it could imply either that a pokemon avoided some training, or just did not train AT ALL.@SauceBoss exactly
@SauceBoss I agree that that would make things less prone to alternate interpretations, but I think the LSAT would judge this language adequate. We can agree to disagree on whether "avoided training" can reasonably be interpreted as "avoided some training, but still received some training." I don't think so, but it actually doesn't really matter right now. This isn't an official LSAT question so we don't have their assessment of right/wrong to decide the issue :P.
If you recognize that one interpretation does allow a chain to be created, that's what matters. You will encounter situations on the LSAT where you might think language can be interpreted in multiple ways, but only 1 of those ways leads to a correct answer. And the LSAT will expect us to understand that one interpretation is the "right" one to take. So it's good that you're examining the precise meaning of language and evaluating whether certain language really implies X or Y or Z. Do not expect, however, the LSAT to always use very clear language designed to help readers avoid misinterpretation. They will regularly use synonyms or other concepts that, according to dictionary definitions, imply other concepts, to keep you on your toes.
Don't take this to mean that your interpretation of "avoided training" is wrong. If I thought the LSAT would regard the question as mistaken I'd acknowledge it and put it on a list for corrections. I'm just not sure that's really the case here, though.
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?
@Mrivera292 from what I'm starting to understand, and I could be wrong, is that the "can't" in question 5 is a modifier of people who cast 9th level spells. So there's people who can and people who can't. So that wouldn't make it an indicator in this question. I've been getting tripped up by the indicator words actually being modifiers quite a bit and wish they would emphasize the difference between them in their explanations.
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this!
Group 1 Indicators If, When, Where, All, Any, Every
Rule: Whatever immediately follows the word goes on the LEFT side of the arrow
Group 2 Indicators Only, Only if, Only when, Only where
Rule: Whatever immediately follows the word goes on the RIGHT side of the arrow
Group 3 Indicators Or, Unless, Until, Without, Except
Rule: Whatever immediately follows the word goes on the RIGHT side. Take the other part of the sentence, NEGATE it, and put it on the LEFT side.
Group 4 Indicators No, None, Never
Rule: Whatever immediately follows the word goes on the LEFT side. Take the other part of the sentence, NEGATE it, and put it on the RIGHT side.
This cheat sheet rlly helped me for these :) I'm hoping using this will help me eventually memorize them. Its here for anybody else. Whoever is reading ily have a great day!
@IsabelleStockstill Thank you so much
I do not think the word "Except" belongs in any group.
Stay focused folks! I view the challenging skill builders as "Brain Boosters" that will strengthen our thought process on how we think about LR questions to improve our overall confidence and understanding by the time we take the real test! Remember we're only going to have roughly 1 min and 27 seconds to read the prompt and make a decision! These more difficult Skill Builders at the minimum puts us in great shape to make an accurate educated guess if all else fails while trying to beat the clock! Lol
Goodluck and stay positive!
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.
Can we get more of these?
Number 3 killed me what happened to group 3 and 4 rules?
@MarcosGuzman415 Those threw me through a loop! It was good practice to see when to use discretion regarding indicator words because my first instinct was to treat line 2 in question 3 like an if/then statement. He says in the lesson that we'll have to think about if the indicator words are denoting something necessary/sufficient. I will definitely need more practice though!
I can do this, the problem is that it takes 10 minutes per question
on Q5, " Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn.Spellcasters who can’t cast ninth-level spells still have more to learn." Isn't the rule for cannot to pick either idea, then negate the idea, and then make that idea the necessary and the other the sufficient?
@Him I think the final statement is a regular if/then statement. Can't is NOT the same as "no/none/cannot/not both"
@LaneyWilliams Yea but the word "cannot" is included in group 4, if you look in the beginning of the page. Cannot and Can't are the same. I was confused as well. Thank you for asking the question @Him
Please help @Kevin_Lin
@MichaelMilman There's a difference between "can't" as part of a modifier and "can't" as the main verb in a sentence.
"Dogs that can't jump are not happy."
[dogs that can't jump] --> not happy
That sentence isn't saying dogs can't jump. It's saying the dogs THAT can't jump aren't happy.
"Dogs can't fly."
dogs --> can't fly
@Kevin_Lin This is very helpful: differenciating "can't" as part of the modifier versus "can't" as the main verb.
I came back to this after a long break. I am definitely more comfortable with chaining conditionals like this but it is still hard. This is worth spending time on because this is often how conditionals look on the test: convoluted.
For Question 4's last setence, @Kevin_Lin says that there is no explicit conditional indicator, but what about " can't" ?
Isn't that a group 4 conditional indicator?
I know the can't here means the ability to make tough decisions, but isn't it also suggesting a conditional concept?
@Hanifa I have this same question!!!! So confused.
@Hanifa sentence starts with barbies which implies "all" therefore we would not need to follow the group 4 inidcator rules. it confused me too but its just one of those things that comes intuitively with lots of practice.
@Arsalan06 I see now. Thanks for the clarification!
See, something that really annoys me is how much you can assume two things are the same or different in sentences.
For example, in Question 4 its answer says: "It’s not clear whether being “expected to make tough decisions” implies having the ability to make tough decisions. Maybe you can be expected to make tough decisions, but you’re not actually able to make those decisions." Therefore the two are not chained.
But for Question 1, I originally thought "Clever velociraptors..." and "When a raptor..." might not be the same. Like, someone might say, "It's not clear whether the second sentence specifically talks about "The Clever Velociraptor", because if so, it should say "When THE raptor finds". We might just be talking about any raptors including the stupid ones"
In the same way, Question 5 treats "9th level Wizards command Magical Energy" and "Wizards with training can control magical energy" as a chain. If a reasoning in Question 4 is permitted, then shouldn't it say, "It's not clear whether they are the same. A wizard who can just command an energy may not be equally adept at controlling it".
Am I slow or is this reasonable?
@kazuhiro35 For the raptor question, "When a raptor..." encompasses all raptors -- that's why it applies to clever velociraptors." "a raptor" doesn't refer to a specific raptor; it's referring generally to raptors.
For #5, the issue is whether the ability to "command" energy implies that you have the ability to "control" it. I think it does, and we can look up definitions to debate about this. But in any case, I don't consider that the point of this exercise. It's about putting you on notice that we are expected to investigate the meanings and implications of concepts. Connections between statements are not always going to stay at "word-matching" level, where you connect if the words are the same, and you don't connect when the words aren't the same. That's what I'd focus on.
@Kevin_Lin That's fair, thanks for your advice. Question 1 was completely my misunderstanding. For Question 5, yes surely the definitions can be debated and as you say, the "word-matching" is not the real focus on the LSAT. I think I was just frustrated by how I failed so much on the "word-matching" specifically in this exercise. Because I was able to do diagrams perfectly in most questions, but Question 5 told me I was wrong solely for the "word-matching" mistake :)
#5, I did not want to assume spellcasters means wizards, so I decided not to include this one as part of the chain. My chain ignored "
9th level→ more to learn" but otherwise was mostly correct. I wonder if anyone else felt the same way?@rdpitkajr Yes, I felt the same way. It was hard to make an inference but after some thought I decided to equate the two for the problem based on inference. Not sure that's the best way to go about it.
@rdpitkajr Same!