Even though relationships is an abstract idea (not physical or concrete), a useful thinking exercise is to think of a relationship as a chain (linkage) connecting two things. For example, think of the relationships of a food chain.
We start at the bottom, grass ——grasshopper —— frog —— hawk —— fungi (decomposer). The physical line represents the relationship (predatory/prey).
Now, I think it’s important to notice that the line goes either way. If I start at frog, then I know the frog is the predator of the grasshopper. However, if I start at grasshopper, then I know the grasshopper is the prey of the frog. How we view relationship can depend on which relata is our starting point. In this relationship, the frog and grasshopper are exactly equal in their predatory/prey relationship, because one cannot exists without the other.
Also, I think this example is also great because it shows us that indirect relationships exist, for example, starting at grass, we can see there is only a direct relationship with the grasshopper, but we can infer a relationship with the hawk by following the linkages.
wow! this is literally the first time the types of relationships has been broken down to me AND ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. i am so excited for this course!!!!
J.Y.'s relationships are short, difficult and painful. The LSAT's relationships are much simpler. The abstract idea between two or more relata. Relationships are important. Relationships. Important.
I REALLY REALLY struggle with sufficient-necessary understanding. This is the only explanation I’ve understood & I’ve done a couple months on lsat demon, googled it, asked chat got, and never get a solid answer
@regggy If you are still a University Student (and your university offers it), please consider taking Logic 1! I took it last semester and a massive part of the curriculum is "Necessary and sufficient clauses."
Hi! I'm studying for the November test to try and get into law school in 2026. Feel free to join my Discord for a study group and connecting! Btw - you're not cooked and you can do it! Praying for all of us fr https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk
Isn’t the term “relata” the plural form of relatum? Then, why does the diagram show a relationship to be the connection between 2 separate “relata” and not “relatums?”
@chief713832 The diagram shows a relationship between two "relata" instead of two "relatums" because of Latin grammar rules and the academic context of the term.
Latin Pluralization:Relatum is a Latin-derived word. In Latin, neuter nouns ending in -um form their plural by changing the suffix to -a. Therefore, one entity is a relatum, and two or more entities are relata.
"Relatums" is Incorrect: Using "relatums" would be an incorrect application of English pluralization rules to a Latin term.
The Context of Relationships: A single relationship typically requires two or more things to connect. The term relata is used to refer to both entities simultaneously (e.g., "The relationship between these two relata")
The videos and the writing under them feel pretty repetitive. Can I just do one or the other, or is there stuff in the text that's not in the video (and vice versa)? Don't want to miss anything by skipping either."
@hsuyt25 I watched the video, realized the article was mostly repeat, but went through the article to help write my notes. There is a few phrasing differences between the video and article
I don't think I quite understand how relationships between phenomenons and hypothesis' work. Does a hypothesis sprout from a phenomenon? Or does a phenomenon support a hypothesis? It seems there's so many ways to interpret the two.
Does anyone have a good rule of thumb for understanding how Phe-Hypos mix?
@KC_AllIn I wanna say that a phenomenon can happen independently. A hypothesis is simply an observation of said phenomenon, So I would assume that the phenomenon activates the hypothesis.
I kind of get it. it seems as if in a relationship one can't exist without the other, did i get it right? it like an incomplete sentence. am I overthinking it?
@yvetteboyd I took it as, the the relationship can't exist without the two relata. The relata can exist independently without the other relata but in order for the relationship to exist there must be the two relata.
53 comments
Even though relationships is an abstract idea (not physical or concrete), a useful thinking exercise is to think of a relationship as a chain (linkage) connecting two things. For example, think of the relationships of a food chain.
We start at the bottom, grass ——grasshopper —— frog —— hawk —— fungi (decomposer). The physical line represents the relationship (predatory/prey).
Now, I think it’s important to notice that the line goes either way. If I start at frog, then I know the frog is the predator of the grasshopper. However, if I start at grasshopper, then I know the grasshopper is the prey of the frog. How we view relationship can depend on which relata is our starting point. In this relationship, the frog and grasshopper are exactly equal in their predatory/prey relationship, because one cannot exists without the other.
Also, I think this example is also great because it shows us that indirect relationships exist, for example, starting at grass, we can see there is only a direct relationship with the grasshopper, but we can infer a relationship with the hawk by following the linkages.
i have a relationship with the LSAT. it's complicated
@AliGoldberg lol
so if i reference my ex enough we'll be in a relationship again? got it.
im manifesting this for u
@janeelkins yes
I'm curious how people prep'd for the LSAT like 20+ years ago??
wow! this is literally the first time the types of relationships has been broken down to me AND ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. i am so excited for this course!!!!
period
J.Y.'s relationships are short, difficult and painful. The LSAT's relationships are much simpler. The abstract idea between two or more relata. Relationships are important. Relationships. Important.
"quite a woman at that" had me dying LOL
7sage knows whats up
I REALLY REALLY struggle with sufficient-necessary understanding. This is the only explanation I’ve understood & I’ve done a couple months on lsat demon, googled it, asked chat got, and never get a solid answer
@regggy If you are still a University Student (and your university offers it), please consider taking Logic 1! I took it last semester and a massive part of the curriculum is "Necessary and sufficient clauses."
Hi! I'm studying for the November test to try and get into law school in 2026. Feel free to join my Discord for a study group and connecting! Btw - you're not cooked and you can do it! Praying for all of us fr https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk
Isn’t the term “relata” the plural form of relatum? Then, why does the diagram show a relationship to be the connection between 2 separate “relata” and not “relatums?”
@chief713832 The diagram shows a relationship between two "relata" instead of two "relatums" because of Latin grammar rules and the academic context of the term.
Latin Pluralization: Relatum is a Latin-derived word. In Latin, neuter nouns ending in -um form their plural by changing the suffix to -a. Therefore, one entity is a relatum, and two or more entities are relata.
"Relatums" is Incorrect: Using "relatums" would be an incorrect application of English pluralization rules to a Latin term.
The Context of Relationships: A single relationship typically requires two or more things to connect. The term relata is used to refer to both entities simultaneously (e.g., "The relationship between these two relata")
j.y. millennialing out with the hp reference
My mom is quite a lady, you are right, thank you
A relationship is an abstract idea that exisits between 2 or more relata. The LSAT is full of relationships.
LSAT = Relata 1?
Full of relationships = Relata 2?
The videos and the writing under them feel pretty repetitive. Can I just do one or the other, or is there stuff in the text that's not in the video (and vice versa)? Don't want to miss anything by skipping either."
Are you guys both watching the vid and reading the article on only one?
@hsuyt25 I watched the video, realized the article was mostly repeat, but went through the article to help write my notes. There is a few phrasing differences between the video and article
Got it, thanks! I've been mostly just reading the articles and I feel like that's ok...I hope. GL w/studying!!
@hsuyt25 both!
yes
I have to say, its getting very annoying, every time I see: Already know this? Skip to the next lesson.
causal-effect: by using 7sage, I’ll likely score higher. Is that an example? Relata 1 = 7sage + Relata 2 = scoring
@Yan Correct me if I am wrong. Would it be Relata 1=7sage + Relata 2 =You , Relationship- scoring Higher?
:)
@PaperChaseWebb :))
are anyone else's videos being weird? Like there isn't a play button
@SophiaBailey mine did not initially show, I just clicked the middle of the video to start it.
@SophiaBailey yes or sound
Dubs
I don't think I quite understand how relationships between phenomenons and hypothesis' work. Does a hypothesis sprout from a phenomenon? Or does a phenomenon support a hypothesis? It seems there's so many ways to interpret the two.
Does anyone have a good rule of thumb for understanding how Phe-Hypos mix?
@KC_AllIn I wanna say that a phenomenon can happen independently. A hypothesis is simply an observation of said phenomenon, So I would assume that the phenomenon activates the hypothesis.
How is being in the USA necessary to being in New York...?
@CarsonWagner WAIT, I get it now. Being in New York guarantees being in the USA, and being in the USA is a necessary condition to being in New York.
I kind of get it. it seems as if in a relationship one can't exist without the other, did i get it right? it like an incomplete sentence. am I overthinking it?
@yvetteboyd I took it as, the the relationship can't exist without the two relata. The relata can exist independently without the other relata but in order for the relationship to exist there must be the two relata.