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.
Really wish this followed formal logic notations. Would make it a lot easier to translate AND for folks unfamiliar with logic to access other resources than could expound on these lessons more.
The whole explanation of subsets and supersets and circles with the dots really helped me to grasp the concept of the sufficient vs., necessary. Then to expand upon this further to the notation was really helpful.
To me, this standard lawgic "formula" for valid conditional arguments is super helpful because it lets you easily spot an invalid argument, it's simply the argument that does not follow the standard
A --> B
X^A
-----
X^B
An example that I came up with that helped me picture all of this is "All cats are mammals. Jojo is a cat, therefore, Jojo is a mammal." This clearly follows the standard equation above. But if the argument is "All cats are mammals. Jojo is a mammal, therefore, Jojo is a cat" then the argument is invalid as it would be translated to
A --> B
X^B
----
X^A
There is a gap in the reasoning here and the conclusion (Jojo is a cat) does not follow from the premises (Jojo could be a dolphin, a dog, pig) therefore, it is invalid.
7
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!
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.
94 comments
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"
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
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.
If y'all are taking notes in Google Docs and are on a Max, Command and Comma is the shortcut for subscript!
I think I could get confused by the subscript X^A. Would this work equally well or would I have issues?
A -> B
X = A
Therefore, X = B
In short, I want to replace ^ with = (easier for me to comprehend) and want to make sure that will have logical issues later on
Instead of:
J ->F
L^J
L^F,
Wouldn't it be easier just to use:
J -> F
L -> J
L -> F ?
Maybe I'm splitting hairs and this is what works for me but someone lmk if me doing it this way will cause problems other conditions.
Idk how I feel about this section... It reminds me of math and I'm terrible at math
Does the line that separates the premises and the conclusion basically translate to therefore in English?
Why cant I just say
A --> B
X---> A
therfore X---> B
I would suggest a more universal 'lawgic' to be:
A⟶B
x ∈ A
.'. x ∈ B
If one is hungry, then one will make a sandwich.
Kate is hungry.
Conc: Kate will make a sandwich.
P1) If you are a black cat then Y will adopt you.
P2) Valerie is a black cat.
C) Y will adopt Valerie.
B→Y
v(B)
v(Y)
P1) If you are a rat then you like cheese
P2) Remy is a rat
Concl) therefore, Remy likes cheese
p1.) If you are a defenseman than you play lacrosse
p2.) George is a defensmen
c.) George plays lacrosse
If one visits New Vegas then they see the Lucky 38. The courrier is in New Vegas. Thus, the courrier sees the Lucky 38.
V -) L
c(V)
_
c(L)
One who is a Soprano is Italian. Tony is a Soprano. Therefore, Tony is Italian.
S → I
t(S)
_
t(I)
If you are a shark then you are a fish. Ollie is a shark. Ollie must be a fish.
S - F
O(s)
--------
O(f)
A-B
x(a)
-----------
x(b)
am I right?
A->B
xA
xB
so A= baseball. B=Sport. x=Ball
baseball is sufficient to be a sport. you use a ball in baseball therefore, a ball is a part of sports. pls correct me if im wrong!
Really wish this followed formal logic notations. Would make it a lot easier to translate AND for folks unfamiliar with logic to access other resources than could expound on these lessons more.
I am not sure if I am finding lawgic or visuals easier.
The whole explanation of subsets and supersets and circles with the dots really helped me to grasp the concept of the sufficient vs., necessary. Then to expand upon this further to the notation was really helpful.
Am I the only one that thinks some visualization in the actual video would be helpful?
To me, this standard lawgic "formula" for valid conditional arguments is super helpful because it lets you easily spot an invalid argument, it's simply the argument that does not follow the standard
A --> B
X^A
-----
X^B
An example that I came up with that helped me picture all of this is "All cats are mammals. Jojo is a cat, therefore, Jojo is a mammal." This clearly follows the standard equation above. But if the argument is "All cats are mammals. Jojo is a mammal, therefore, Jojo is a cat" then the argument is invalid as it would be translated to
A --> B
X^B
----
X^A
There is a gap in the reasoning here and the conclusion (Jojo is a cat) does not follow from the premises (Jojo could be a dolphin, a dog, pig) therefore, it is invalid.