#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.
@MalakAbusoud It took me a little while to find a good reason why we CAN'T substitute = for subscripts, but I finally have a good reason.
Essentially, if you use the = then you are saying that the relationship goes both ways: A=B leads you to assume that B=A. In the example in the video, Luke = Jedi but Jedi does not equal to Luke since there are Jedis that are not Luke. That is the only reason I have come up with why we use subscripts and not the equal sign.
A -> B means if A, therefore B (but you cannot assume if B therefore A from this)
A^B means A is a member of B (but you cannot assume B is also a member of A)
A=B means A is B and B is A.
Additionally, it could be messy in the video example if you did L=J because then you'd also use L=F and then from that, you can conclude that J=F and that is NOT TRUE. Hope that's helpful! I needed this answer myself.
@PhilipMorse the problem with this is that the arrows represent conditional statements which are like "if then" statements or "only if" statements. when you put L-->J what you are saying in "lawgic" literally translates to if luke then jedi. and with
L--->F what you are literally saying is if you are luke then you use the force. what you want to say luke is a jedi, and the way you state that is by a seperate premise which literally just says luke is a jedi, no conditional necessary. from that you can say okay, we have the first premise J--->F second premise Luke is a jedi, and with that you can conclude Luke uses the force. i hope this was helpful. look up Modus ponens. thats the form of this argument.
@jos hahaha, coming back two months later, I can confidently say lawgic is second nature for me now! I took the Nov. LSAT and felt confident. Keep your head up, it will get easier :)
@mrcarrillo327 Yes. Or, if you compare this formula to an addition problem, then it means "equals." As in:
2
+2
------
4
Or, A--->B + xA = xB.
Differentiating this argument form with mathematical comparisons rather than English ones may help you prioritize a form's validity over its content! :)
@JibrilAbdrabboh This is a valid argument form, but is a different argument than the one discussed. What you're saying is "If A then B. If X then A. Therefore If X then B".
The arrow represents a conditional relationship, so the argument you make only concludes that there is a conditional relationship between X and B, not that X is sufficient for B.
This probably isn't important for the LSAT, but the argument form you're invoking is called a hypothetical syllogism. Good luck, and I hope this helps!:)
@DrewBecker Sorry - This argument does say that X is sufficient for B. I meant to say that the argument you propose doesn't satisfy the terms of a conditional argument. Sorry, this probably was more confusing than helpful
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.
104 comments
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!
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
@MalakAbusoud It took me a little while to find a good reason why we CAN'T substitute = for subscripts, but I finally have a good reason.
Essentially, if you use the = then you are saying that the relationship goes both ways: A=B leads you to assume that B=A. In the example in the video, Luke = Jedi but Jedi does not equal to Luke since there are Jedis that are not Luke. That is the only reason I have come up with why we use subscripts and not the equal sign.
A -> B means if A, therefore B (but you cannot assume if B therefore A from this)
A^B means A is a member of B (but you cannot assume B is also a member of A)
A=B means A is B and B is A.
Additionally, it could be messy in the video example if you did L=J because then you'd also use L=F and then from that, you can conclude that J=F and that is NOT TRUE. Hope that's helpful! I needed this answer myself.
@bbcream Very good point
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.
@PhilipMorse the problem with this is that the arrows represent conditional statements which are like "if then" statements or "only if" statements. when you put L-->J what you are saying in "lawgic" literally translates to if luke then jedi. and with
L--->F what you are literally saying is if you are luke then you use the force. what you want to say luke is a jedi, and the way you state that is by a seperate premise which literally just says luke is a jedi, no conditional necessary. from that you can say okay, we have the first premise J--->F second premise Luke is a jedi, and with that you can conclude Luke uses the force. i hope this was helpful. look up Modus ponens. thats the form of this argument.
@zakariaJannane ohhhh okay that helps a lot, thank you.
@zakariaJannane this was very helpful
Idk how I feel about this section... It reminds me of math and I'm terrible at math
@emmalc02 LMAOO foreal!
@jos hahaha, coming back two months later, I can confidently say lawgic is second nature for me now! I took the Nov. LSAT and felt confident. Keep your head up, it will get easier :)
Does the line that separates the premises and the conclusion basically translate to therefore in English?
@mrcarrillo327 Yes. Or, if you compare this formula to an addition problem, then it means "equals." As in:
2
+2
------
4
Or, A--->B + xA = xB.
Differentiating this argument form with mathematical comparisons rather than English ones may help you prioritize a form's validity over its content! :)
Why cant I just say
A --> B
X---> A
therfore X---> B
@JibrilAbdrabboh This is a valid argument form, but is a different argument than the one discussed. What you're saying is "If A then B. If X then A. Therefore If X then B".
The arrow represents a conditional relationship, so the argument you make only concludes that there is a conditional relationship between X and B, not that X is sufficient for B.
This probably isn't important for the LSAT, but the argument form you're invoking is called a hypothetical syllogism. Good luck, and I hope this helps!:)
@DrewBecker Sorry - This argument does say that X is sufficient for B. I meant to say that the argument you propose doesn't satisfy the terms of a conditional argument. Sorry, this probably was more confusing than helpful
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)
@11tristanseguin FNV reference!
@11tristanseguin BASED VALID ARGUMENT
One who is a Soprano is Italian. Tony is a Soprano. Therefore, Tony is Italian.
S → I
t(S)
_
t(I)