#help why are conditional (suff vs necess) and logic of sets (supersets, subsets, intersecting sets) described as different types of logic but then in suff and necess are used interchangeably with supersets/subsets in the lessons immediately following? Of note, I have completed the entire curriculum but I am really struggling with conditional reasoning and have returned to these lessons to figure out what I am missing. Thanks!
For anyone who feels lost and is just starting the LSAT journey -- I am back here reviewing this content 6 months after first starting, and all of this information makes SO much more sense coming back. You got this!
Hey, if any of yall are confused or need more help, I took a class on logic years ago and my prof assigned this textbook. It's totally free and really good. It's called forallx calgary. They even made a website you can download it from. https://forallx.openlogicproject.org/
I know it's still early in the module, but if formal logic has to do with the absolute validity of an argument, why would causal logic fall under the umbrella of informal logic? Causal logic shows cause and effect, in other words if A is true, B must be true. This appears to be the very idea behind the formal logics valid/invalid nature.
I'm lost on how to follow this lesson plan. It says "So far, we've covered the foundational importance of arguments on the test," but this is the first lesson on the syllabus? Where did we cover that?
0
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.
32 comments
#help why are conditional (suff vs necess) and logic of sets (supersets, subsets, intersecting sets) described as different types of logic but then in suff and necess are used interchangeably with supersets/subsets in the lessons immediately following? Of note, I have completed the entire curriculum but I am really struggling with conditional reasoning and have returned to these lessons to figure out what I am missing. Thanks!
When seeing a stimulus, is it essential to recognize whether it is formal or informal logic?
this is making me happy that i just suffered through a half semester logic course
So is it safe to say that informal logic relies on support being involved in the argument and wether it is strong or weak?
In my legal reasoning class at GSU, we used the terminology deductive reasoning (formal logic) and inductive reasoning (informal logic).
For anyone who feels lost and is just starting the LSAT journey -- I am back here reviewing this content 6 months after first starting, and all of this information makes SO much more sense coming back. You got this!
formal logic is mainly focused if an argument is valid or invalid
informal logic is mainly focused on if a argument is weak or strong
going to be honest, but this makes so much more sense after doing the v1 syllabus for a while.
so if im understanding this correctly ..
formal logic = if X is true then Y must be true (either yes or no this is an argument)
informal logic = if X is true, Y might be true (based on support, can be a scale of strong to weak argument)
came back to the fundamentals after MBT lessons😭
Welp. This is where I begin to struggle.
Hey, if any of yall are confused or need more help, I took a class on logic years ago and my prof assigned this textbook. It's totally free and really good. It's called forallx calgary. They even made a website you can download it from. https://forallx.openlogicproject.org/
I know it's still early in the module, but if formal logic has to do with the absolute validity of an argument, why would causal logic fall under the umbrella of informal logic? Causal logic shows cause and effect, in other words if A is true, B must be true. This appears to be the very idea behind the formal logics valid/invalid nature.
I'm lost on how to follow this lesson plan. It says "So far, we've covered the foundational importance of arguments on the test," but this is the first lesson on the syllabus? Where did we cover that?