I feel like I have been doing this BUT it really clicked in how this was broken down to lead us into a very simple formula and method to break down arguments!
Are we supposed to do this type of diagramming/write out the formulas during the actual LSAT? Given the limited time per question this just seems way too time consuming. Surely there's other ways
@ujustgotlittup You might only want to do this for 1 or 2 questions in a section (the ones that have so many conditionals that it's hard to keep the connections in your head). The purpose of learning the structure now is so that it becomes more intuitive and that you can visualize most basic arguments in your mind. So typically you wouldn't draw anything out in a timed situation.
#feedback I wonder if Jedi/Force is the most comprehensible subset and superset that we could pick for these lessons. I grant that Star Wars has significant cultural traction. As I try to commit his to memory (particularly whether it's J -> F or F -> J) I find myself wondering "wait ... are there other non-Jedi force users? Are the Sith bad guys technically Jedi, but just an evil type of Jedi? Does every Jedi necessarily use the force?" I realize that you may have stipulated already in a previous lesson that all Jedi use the force, but this is new material to us, and we're trying to remember. I wonder if the relationships would be more transparent with some other more blatant example, like maple ⊂ trees ⊂ plants, or Lassie ⊂ dogs ⊂ mammals. At least some of us are inclined to lose track of the subset/superset relationship between Jedi and force users, but I think literally everyone on 7Sage knows maple ⊂ trees ⊂ plants.
@ToweringTextbooks Ahh, I made it through a few more lessons, and I see that these often add other examples like Garfield ⊂ cats ⊂ mammals. Thanks for this! I would welcome adding this example to the pages that include the Star Wars example.
I took a formal logic class last year and this is very reminiscent of the content taught, might be helpful to anyone struggling with this if you try learning some preliminary formal logic on youtube
A couple years ago I told a math teacher that doing set theory was a waste of time and I wouldn't need it in my career. Well look at me now lol, its funny how things can come bite you later.
my engineer / math brain doesn't particularly like this notation (however, I believe I understand the purpose.)
A question remains for me. Are we to assume that X is the lowest divisible object type in our argument (i.e. Luke being a 'person', or empire state building being a 'monument/location')?
The reason I ask is, why not label L -> J? is it because we assume Luke will not be broken down further (i.e. into midichlorian and non midichlorian anatomical parts)?
@JonathanKennedy22 Makes sense. Recognize that the concept "A" and "B" don't necessarily have to have a causal/timing relationship in the same way as the two dominos, though.
"If you got an A, you must have studied."
Here, A implies having studied. But A doesn't "cause" the studying to happen, and the A didn't happen before the studying. But we know that if someone got an A, then it must be true that they studied.
@Audreyeliz I take it back, I was looking at it as if it was math or a fraction and that tripped me up, but once I slowed down and just made sure I understood the symbols its so much easier.
IDK if it's just me, but I feel like translating it into a more algebraic form is confusing me more. Maybe it's because I wasn't good at math in school, but it makes so much more sense to look at it visually or in English than in Lawgic form. I know they previously said it doesn't always work visually, but it just doesn't click in my head when I see it lawgically.
117 comments
Is this wrong then?
J --> F
L--> J
______
L --> F
If A, then B
If X is A...
X is also B
Right?
I think of J->F as the "rule" for this universe. If Luke lives in this universe and he is a Jedi - what else do we know about him?
I was thinking more like this:
J-->F +
L-->J =
L-->J-->F =
L-->F
Does this hold up?
Me, who flunked math in highschool:
I actually love math. So much clearer.
Can't we just diagram it as J > F
L > J
Thus, L > F
(that way the J's cancel out, leading us to the conclsuion)
Girl math hehe
I feel like I have been doing this BUT it really clicked in how this was broken down to lead us into a very simple formula and method to break down arguments!
If you want to dive more deep into valid arguments and proofs. The book, “How To Prove It”, is a cool book on the subject.
It’s 2nd chapter is especially useful as you learn about (and ^) and (or) notation, which comes with drills. the drills have you turn sentences like:
“if it does not rain tommorow then it will snow” into logical structure.
Where R = rain, S = snow.
-R —> S (if NOT rain then snow).
It will either rain or snow. (R OR S)
-S
therefore R.
At minimum I’d hammer home DeMorgan’s Law:
P —> Q
-Q —> -P (valid)
-P —> -Q(invalid)
For AND^ operations:
(P ^ R) —> Q) if P and R then Q
-(P ^ R) —> -Q) if not P and R not Q
(-P OR -R) —> -Q) (OR flips ^ down)
if not P nor R not Q
Are we supposed to do this type of diagramming/write out the formulas during the actual LSAT? Given the limited time per question this just seems way too time consuming. Surely there's other ways
@ujustgotlittup You might only want to do this for 1 or 2 questions in a section (the ones that have so many conditionals that it's hard to keep the connections in your head). The purpose of learning the structure now is so that it becomes more intuitive and that you can visualize most basic arguments in your mind. So typically you wouldn't draw anything out in a timed situation.
Modus Ponens!
This is so cool :) Thanks!
#feedback I wonder if Jedi/Force is the most comprehensible subset and superset that we could pick for these lessons. I grant that Star Wars has significant cultural traction. As I try to commit his to memory (particularly whether it's J -> F or F -> J) I find myself wondering "wait ... are there other non-Jedi force users? Are the Sith bad guys technically Jedi, but just an evil type of Jedi? Does every Jedi necessarily use the force?" I realize that you may have stipulated already in a previous lesson that all Jedi use the force, but this is new material to us, and we're trying to remember. I wonder if the relationships would be more transparent with some other more blatant example, like maple ⊂ trees ⊂ plants, or Lassie ⊂ dogs ⊂ mammals. At least some of us are inclined to lose track of the subset/superset relationship between Jedi and force users, but I think literally everyone on 7Sage knows maple ⊂ trees ⊂ plants.
@ToweringTextbooks Ahh, I made it through a few more lessons, and I see that these often add other examples like Garfield ⊂ cats ⊂ mammals. Thanks for this! I would welcome adding this example to the pages that include the Star Wars example.
Now you're speaking my language
not doing math so i don't confuse myself, ill be back once i finish everything to let you guys know if it was worth it or not
I took a formal logic class last year and this is very reminiscent of the content taught, might be helpful to anyone struggling with this if you try learning some preliminary formal logic on youtube
@Zach_Spector so helpful! where did you take the class?
A couple years ago I told a math teacher that doing set theory was a waste of time and I wouldn't need it in my career. Well look at me now lol, its funny how things can come bite you later.
my engineer / math brain doesn't particularly like this notation (however, I believe I understand the purpose.)
A question remains for me. Are we to assume that X is the lowest divisible object type in our argument (i.e. Luke being a 'person', or empire state building being a 'monument/location')?
The reason I ask is, why not label L -> J? is it because we assume Luke will not be broken down further (i.e. into midichlorian and non midichlorian anatomical parts)?
Trying to see if I have the proper intuitive understanding.
Thinking of A → B as a domino chain.
If domino A falls → domino B falls (guaranteed)
Thinking of xA as: Domino A just fell (we knocked it over)
x (some specific person/thing) is in set A"
"The sufficient condition is satisfied"
"We knocked over the first domino"
Therefore xB: Domino B MUST fall (no choice, the chain reaction is triggered)
"x MUST be in set B"
"The necessary condition is satisfied"
"The second domino fell"
@JonathanKennedy22 Makes sense. Recognize that the concept "A" and "B" don't necessarily have to have a causal/timing relationship in the same way as the two dominos, though.
"If you got an A, you must have studied."
Here, A implies having studied. But A doesn't "cause" the studying to happen, and the A didn't happen before the studying. But we know that if someone got an A, then it must be true that they studied.
@Kevin_Lin Now that I am further a long in the lessons it makes a lot more sense. Thank you for the response!
Ok, so this is how I've been viewing it but idk if this helps or hurts me.
This is the most lost i've been so far
@Audreyeliz I take it back, I was looking at it as if it was math or a fraction and that tripped me up, but once I slowed down and just made sure I understood the symbols its so much easier.
@Audreyeliz same...
Wow - its chemistry class again :(
IDK if it's just me, but I feel like translating it into a more algebraic form is confusing me more. Maybe it's because I wasn't good at math in school, but it makes so much more sense to look at it visually or in English than in Lawgic form. I know they previously said it doesn't always work visually, but it just doesn't click in my head when I see it lawgically.
@SheridanMcGadden A couple lessons later and I understand why we needs this now...
If y'all are taking notes in Google Docs and are on a Max, Command and Comma is the shortcut for subscript!