can we not use the discussion for meaningless bs... I've only seen this feature useful once every other time its jus randoms acting like its a tiktok comment section
@JKang I've found that laughing at others' comments has only helped me remember lessons better! Everyone has a right to study, comment, and interact on a platform they've paid for in the way that best suits their own personality, within reason. life is short, and we should enjoy laughing around a little bit, when appropriate! best of luck on your studies!
Set theory is pretty fascinating. I love Russell's paradox: According to the unrestricted comprehension principle, for any sufficiently well-defined property, there is the set of all and only the objects that have that property. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. (This set is sometimes called "the Russell set".) If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; yet, if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. The resulting contradiction is Russell's paradox.
@jhlaier Russell's paradox was the first concept I thought of when hearing the word "set." It's so interesting to see overlap from previous studies with LSAT studies, and it makes the LSAT feel all the more human and real; it isn't some abstract, intangible logicfest but rather a test of real life application!
Also, after just having read Katabasis by R.F. Kuang and seeing Russell's paradox represented there, as well, it's nice to see it represented again!
This is where it all started to go wrong for me lol. In all seriousness, the whole necessary vs sufficient and subset vs superset thing is what catches me out the most, probably because its never this simply outlined in the actual questions.
Feeling kind of annoyed that I was sent to the old LSAT schedule and not the new one from the start. I just wasted a day and a half on the old schedule, and it's unclear what I need to do, and what I need to skip on the old one.
Dog is the set and the members are Fido, Lassie and Marmadue. Mammal is a superset that dog is in. Simba is a member of mammal set but not a member of the dog set. Physical Thing is a superset of mammal. Ball is member of physical things but not a member of mammal.
Black is a set and the members are Steve, Harvey and Alyssa. Student is a superset of Black, Justin is a member of student set but not a member of Black set. American is a superset of student and Linell is a member of American but not a member of student subset.
I could be misunderstanding what you are trying to say here but I believe that in order for something to have a super/subset relationship, the superset must encompass the entirety of the subset. So the example of Americans being a superset of students would not be accurate as not all students are American.
@yanasok398 there have been questions on the previous LSATs that test on these concepts along with percentages. A simple format for example:
60% of law students take Constitutional Law.
40% of law students participate in Moot court.
25% of law students both take Constitutional Law and participate in Moot court.
∣C∪M∣=∣C∣+∣M∣−∣C∩M∣ =60+40−25=75%
A question might test what we can infer from this, that is 75% of the student only does exclusively one or the other.
The questions get really tricky when they start introducing abstract numeral words like all, more, most, some, instead of a solid number. Like for example:
Most (more than 50% -> almost all) law students take Constitutional Law.
Some (at least one person) law students participate in moot court.
All (M subset of C ) law students who participate in moot court also take Constitutional Law.
And now you are trying to draw Venn Diagrams and inferences based on these sets of data. For example:
Inference 1: Some students who take Constitutional Law participate in moot court.
Inference 2: Most law students do not participate in moot court.
Yes! A set can contain another set (look into powersets for an example of this). A set can contain only one entity - this is called a singleton set. A set can also be empty.
For sure, and famously Bertrand Russel discovered a paradox in this (which was resolved by a new rule for sets). Basically "Russel's paradox" explains how a set cannot contain itself. An example I pulled off the internet: "Consider a group of barbers who shave only those men who do not shave themselves. Suppose there is a barber in this collection who does not shave himself; then by the definition of the collection, he must shave himself. But no barber in the collection can shave himself."
Sorry probably not helpful for the LSAT but I think it's really interesting. There is a great video by Jeffrey Kaplan (a philosophy professor) on YouTube who extrapolates his own set-based paradox by using predicates of all things!
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
36 comments
Why does the lsat take basic grammar and make it advanced 🤯
we now all have semantic satiation for the word "set"
Garfield catching strays
can we not use the discussion for meaningless bs... I've only seen this feature useful once every other time its jus randoms acting like its a tiktok comment section
@JKang I think letting people have a bit of fun while studying for an exam is okay.
@JKang I've found that laughing at others' comments has only helped me remember lessons better! Everyone has a right to study, comment, and interact on a platform they've paid for in the way that best suits their own personality, within reason. life is short, and we should enjoy laughing around a little bit, when appropriate! best of luck on your studies!
@JKang this kind of feels unnecessary... you do not have to open the comment section if you dont want to :) let people have fun and enjoy life
THIS GUYS' OBSESSED W/ FAT CATS LOL
Set theory is pretty fascinating. I love Russell's paradox: According to the unrestricted comprehension principle, for any sufficiently well-defined property, there is the set of all and only the objects that have that property. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. (This set is sometimes called "the Russell set".) If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; yet, if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. The resulting contradiction is Russell's paradox.
@jhlaier Russell's paradox was the first concept I thought of when hearing the word "set." It's so interesting to see overlap from previous studies with LSAT studies, and it makes the LSAT feel all the more human and real; it isn't some abstract, intangible logicfest but rather a test of real life application!
Also, after just having read Katabasis by R.F. Kuang and seeing Russell's paradox represented there, as well, it's nice to see it represented again!
inSETption
Going back to do my foundation lessons because I am the worst studier and skipped ahead to LR lol
I think I get it - subset is small and the super set is big
subset: pizza
superset: food
Same! Lol I stopped grammar halfway thru
This is where it all started to go wrong for me lol. In all seriousness, the whole necessary vs sufficient and subset vs superset thing is what catches me out the most, probably because its never this simply outlined in the actual questions.
substet is a category in a superset
Feeling kind of annoyed that I was sent to the old LSAT schedule and not the new one from the start. I just wasted a day and a half on the old schedule, and it's unclear what I need to do, and what I need to skip on the old one.
subset: Dog
superset: Animals
I though we would get a picture of the Car
show cat
Hopefully i got this correct
Dog is the set and the members are Fido, Lassie and Marmadue. Mammal is a superset that dog is in. Simba is a member of mammal set but not a member of the dog set. Physical Thing is a superset of mammal. Ball is member of physical things but not a member of mammal.
Black is a set and the members are Steve, Harvey and Alyssa. Student is a superset of Black, Justin is a member of student set but not a member of Black set. American is a superset of student and Linell is a member of American but not a member of student subset.
I could be misunderstanding what you are trying to say here but I believe that in order for something to have a super/subset relationship, the superset must encompass the entirety of the subset. So the example of Americans being a superset of students would not be accurate as not all students are American.
At this point we need a pic of Athena!
a little confused how this will relate to actual questions on the LSAT but we will see!
@yanasok398 there have been questions on the previous LSATs that test on these concepts along with percentages. A simple format for example:
60% of law students take Constitutional Law.
40% of law students participate in Moot court.
25% of law students both take Constitutional Law and participate in Moot court.
∣C∪M∣=∣C∣+∣M∣−∣C∩M∣ =60+40−25=75%
A question might test what we can infer from this, that is 75% of the student only does exclusively one or the other.
The questions get really tricky when they start introducing abstract numeral words like all, more, most, some, instead of a solid number. Like for example:
Most (more than 50% -> almost all) law students take Constitutional Law.
Some (at least one person) law students participate in moot court.
All (M subset of C ) law students who participate in moot court also take Constitutional Law.
And now you are trying to draw Venn Diagrams and inferences based on these sets of data. For example:
Inference 1: Some students who take Constitutional Law participate in moot court.
Inference 2: Most law students do not participate in moot court.
all of a sudden the stuff i learned last week is starting to make more sense #lol
Honestly
You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you
this being posted 3 weeks ago is just.. chefs kiss
whoever said to ask chatgpt for example questions for certain topics is a God. I was struggling with this particular topic, will not lie.
Hi! How did you use chat gpt to help you with this?
Can a set contain another set? Can a set contain only one entity? Can a set be empty?
Yes! A set can contain another set (look into powersets for an example of this). A set can contain only one entity - this is called a singleton set. A set can also be empty.
For sure, and famously Bertrand Russel discovered a paradox in this (which was resolved by a new rule for sets). Basically "Russel's paradox" explains how a set cannot contain itself. An example I pulled off the internet: "Consider a group of barbers who shave only those men who do not shave themselves. Suppose there is a barber in this collection who does not shave himself; then by the definition of the collection, he must shave himself. But no barber in the collection can shave himself."
Sorry probably not helpful for the LSAT but I think it's really interesting. There is a great video by Jeffrey Kaplan (a philosophy professor) on YouTube who extrapolates his own set-based paradox by using predicates of all things!
Excited to learn more about logical reasoning!
Now how about a subset of donkeys? Pretty clear indeed.
pretty clear!