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?
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."
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."
I am really confused. I only see two circles in the diagram- one above the shape containing '10' and one above the shape containing 'your mother' - am I missing something? It seems like there are three relata in the examples. Please clarify. Thank you for your help.
@Kevin_Lin that is what I see, yes- but I think that more circles were mentioned at some point. But there are only two circles signifying the starting point in the relate. That is the diagram, though.
The number 2 is referring to the number of relata's that are shown in the diagram. Example: Mother and Son. It can be three like mother, son, and sister but in the example shown in the diagram, it's only mom and son.
@SurinBaghbani I understood it as the individual parts of the relationship. One can exist without the other (10 can exist without 7) but the relationship cannot exist without at least both (10 cant be greater than 7, if 7 doesn't exist).
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.
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")
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
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!!!!
@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'm rather confused about how "being in the USA is necessary for you to be in NY" isn't a sufficient answer? After all, you could be in Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, etc.
Ok, let's say "being in new york" is A and "being in the USA" is B. You need B in order to even think about A (you cannot think about being in New York if you aren't even in the US). Thus, A needs B in order to even be true, hence B is necessary for A. B is not sufficient for A because B by itself does not guarantee A (being in the USA does not guarantee you are in New York, as you rightfully pointed out). Since B does not automatically lead to A, it is not sufficient.
@ianmurr03 In order to be in NYC you have to be in the USA. You cant be in the USA without being in NYC. This means that its necessary to be in USA to be in NYC.
51 comments
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?
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."
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 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?
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."
I am really confused. I only see two circles in the diagram- one above the shape containing '10' and one above the shape containing 'your mother' - am I missing something? It seems like there are three relata in the examples. Please clarify. Thank you for your help.
@EmmaSmith This is the image that should appear:
@Kevin_Lin that is what I see, yes- but I think that more circles were mentioned at some point. But there are only two circles signifying the starting point in the relate. That is the diagram, though.
@EmmaSmith
Relata = the items (the two circle)
The number 2 is referring to the number of relata's that are shown in the diagram. Example: Mother and Son. It can be three like mother, son, and sister but in the example shown in the diagram, it's only mom and son.
Relationship = the way they are connected
Example: Mother of. It's a type of relation.
Hope this helps.
@EmmaSmith I think the circle means the biger part, that include the arrow. While the opposite is not posible. Like continent and content.
If they are two circles mean the relation goes both ways. Like John is friend with Michael, as much as Michael is friend with John.
Hope it helps, In case is still needed. I'm starting this as well.
whats a relata
@SurinBaghbani I understood it as the individual parts of the relationship. One can exist without the other (10 can exist without 7) but the relationship cannot exist without at least both (10 cant be greater than 7, if 7 doesn't exist).
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.
:)
@PaperChaseWebb :))
I'm curious how people prep'd for the LSAT like 20+ years ago??
i have a relationship with the LSAT. it's complicated
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
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")
My mom is quite a lady, you are right, thank you
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
j.y. millennialing out with the hp reference
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!!!!
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!
I'm rather confused about how "being in the USA is necessary for you to be in NY" isn't a sufficient answer? After all, you could be in Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, etc.
Ok, let's say "being in new york" is A and "being in the USA" is B. You need B in order to even think about A (you cannot think about being in New York if you aren't even in the US). Thus, A needs B in order to even be true, hence B is necessary for A. B is not sufficient for A because B by itself does not guarantee A (being in the USA does not guarantee you are in New York, as you rightfully pointed out). Since B does not automatically lead to A, it is not sufficient.
@ianmurr03 In order to be in NYC you have to be in the USA. You cant be in the USA without being in NYC. This means that its necessary to be in USA to be in NYC.
@aliegeaksu great explanation, thank you! i was sorting it out as i came across your reply lol
so if i reference my ex enough we'll be in a relationship again? got it.
im manifesting this for u
@janeelkins yes
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?
period
Dubs
good