After getting this far into the study plan, what drills should we be practicing? I wish there was something to tell you what drills you should be practicing..
@Reddrum0911 ive just gone through the whole curriculum. i think the best thing for yourself is to take the preptest, then check analytics on your weaknesses. and theeen drill your weakest question tags.
#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 haven't completed the next modules yet but i'm minoring in philosophy so i have past experience with both kinds of logic. causation is not absolute and airtight like formal logic is. an airtight formal logic sentence would be something like "if A does not happen, B will happen. A did not happen. Therefore, B will happen". causational logic, even in its strongest form, would probably fall more along the lines of something like "A happened right before B, and when A did not happen B did not happen. therefore A caused B". even though it is extremely likely that causation happened, it cannot be proven for sure beyond a doubt. formal logic is absolutely without any doubt or question whatsoever, causational always has gaps etc
I think it's because causal logic isn't as airtight as formal logic. The former is concerned with things that happen empirically and on the basis of observation- not as a result of logical reasoning per se.
"If I step on a lego, I will feel pain," "If I do not eat, then I will die," etc etc. They seem right.
But they aren't valid arguments. We only think they are "true" because of empirical observation. Technically, there's a chance- however small- that I won't feel pain when I step on the lego (because, say, I have no nerves there); and there's a chance that I won't die if I don't eat because I drank an immortality elixir or something. You see what I mean?
I understand what your getting at. However, one of, if not the the strongest argument(s) you can make is a causal argument. In other words B occurs since A preceded B. This shows that A is the absolute cause behind why B occurred. This is what researchers in the real world seek when talking about statistical analysis, clinical trials, etc. So I still don't quite understand how it would be informal logic.
But researchers never assert that A is the absolute cause of B. They recognize that the scientific method is fallible and that they can always be disproven. Newton's theories were accepted until Einstein came along.
Scientists have a totally different goal than logicians. Scientists observe results and form causal theories (emphasis on theories), whereas logicians see what must be true by definition given a set of premises. Cause and effect just doesn't have the same kind of absolute nature that formal logic has.
@milank2711 One way to think about it might be that "A if B" is has a different meaning than "A because B." For example, saying "if it rained then the sidewalk is wet" doesn't imply that the sidewalk is wet because it rained. For example, imagine it's an indoor sidewalk, but whenever it rains a man dumps a bucket of water on it. In this case it's true that if it rains, the sidewalk it wet. Yet it's false that it's wet because of the rain ... on the contrary, it's wet because of the man.
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?
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.
37 comments
After getting this far into the study plan, what drills should we be practicing? I wish there was something to tell you what drills you should be practicing..
@Reddrum0911 ive just gone through the whole curriculum. i think the best thing for yourself is to take the preptest, then check analytics on your weaknesses. and theeen drill your weakest question tags.
@ResourcefulUbiquitousIntroduction Thanks for the response. I just dont know if it is too early to take a pretest
@Reddrum0911 take it, if you never had! its satisfying to see your score going up from the very beginning and at the very end
I loooove the way they teach here. It jives with my brain and just clicks. The explanations, the visuals, it’s all perfect. Thanks you guys!
#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).
Same!
@jayprev97 YA! in philosophy we call formal deductive and informal inductive, it was kind of weird to hear it as formal and informal logic LOL
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!
Thank you for the encouragement!
@DaisyAstudillo same...
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😭
SAME
SAME because MBT was not my friend! LOL
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/
You are a Saint, I'm expecting Logic to be the hardest part for me <3 Thanks!!
Thank you!
Thank you so much!!
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 haven't completed the next modules yet but i'm minoring in philosophy so i have past experience with both kinds of logic. causation is not absolute and airtight like formal logic is. an airtight formal logic sentence would be something like "if A does not happen, B will happen. A did not happen. Therefore, B will happen". causational logic, even in its strongest form, would probably fall more along the lines of something like "A happened right before B, and when A did not happen B did not happen. therefore A caused B". even though it is extremely likely that causation happened, it cannot be proven for sure beyond a doubt. formal logic is absolutely without any doubt or question whatsoever, causational always has gaps etc
I think it's because causal logic isn't as airtight as formal logic. The former is concerned with things that happen empirically and on the basis of observation- not as a result of logical reasoning per se.
"If I step on a lego, I will feel pain," "If I do not eat, then I will die," etc etc. They seem right.
But they aren't valid arguments. We only think they are "true" because of empirical observation. Technically, there's a chance- however small- that I won't feel pain when I step on the lego (because, say, I have no nerves there); and there's a chance that I won't die if I don't eat because I drank an immortality elixir or something. You see what I mean?
David Hume writes a very influential piece on how causation is just custom and habituation.
I understand what your getting at. However, one of, if not the the strongest argument(s) you can make is a causal argument. In other words B occurs since A preceded B. This shows that A is the absolute cause behind why B occurred. This is what researchers in the real world seek when talking about statistical analysis, clinical trials, etc. So I still don't quite understand how it would be informal logic.
But researchers never assert that A is the absolute cause of B. They recognize that the scientific method is fallible and that they can always be disproven. Newton's theories were accepted until Einstein came along.
Scientists have a totally different goal than logicians. Scientists observe results and form causal theories (emphasis on theories), whereas logicians see what must be true by definition given a set of premises. Cause and effect just doesn't have the same kind of absolute nature that formal logic has.
Great explanation
this makes so much sense, thank you!
@milank2711 One way to think about it might be that "A if B" is has a different meaning than "A because B." For example, saying "if it rained then the sidewalk is wet" doesn't imply that the sidewalk is wet because it rained. For example, imagine it's an indoor sidewalk, but whenever it rains a man dumps a bucket of water on it. In this case it's true that if it rains, the sidewalk it wet. Yet it's false that it's wet because of the rain ... on the contrary, it's wet because of the man.
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?
I believe it's referring to the lesson on arguments and the foundations of arguments in the beginning of the syllabus.
i.e. premise, conclusion, assumptions, and support