@alexandershort4891 idk, that makes it look like X can't build Y and Z which isn't how I see it. I see it as X can build Y and Z but cannot build Y if it doesnt also build Z
jdawg's approach was the other route I imagined possible... but I hesitated with that approach only because the grammar trips me up with this particular phrasing (aka, the lack of a comma). Good to know!
Hey Alex - how's it going? Long time no see - we should meet up sometime. I would look at this statement as "X builds Y, but not Z", with the 'No' negating all elements that follow.
I understand "X builds Y, but not Z" much more easily, and would write it as a single X with two arrows, one to Y and another to ~Z.
If there is no comma in the statement, I'd have to assume the "No" at the beginning applies to both elements.
So, "No X builds Y":
X -> ~Y
And "No (X builds Not Z)"
(X -> ~Z)
~X -> Z
Ultimately getting:
X -> ~Y and ~X -> Z
Although, admittedly, I'm certainly uncertain about my approach in this case.
if Y & /Z -> /x (i think)lol took me a minute to make sense of that, its saying X cannot build Y without building Z too
1
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!
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.
12 comments
@catherinem8843 yes
I take it as If it is X and it builds Y, it must build Z.
Ahhh I see. So we have two conditions for the conditional.
If you have Y AND /Z then you don't have /x.
Which is what you said:
Y & /Z ---> /X
@mahdiall408 I don't think so. think of it as no X builds Y without(but not) building Z
Wait, I'm actually confused lol. I understood this statement to mean two things:
1) no X builds Y (Y --> /X)
2) no X does not build Z ( Z --> X)
Y --> /X
/X --> /Z
-----------
Y --> /Z
Is that not right? lol
eh its similar... and I like the wording you used there @catherinem8843
It is saying that if X builds Y, then it must also build Z take out the negative language on this one.
(X-->Y)--> (X-->Y&Z)
The contrapositive of the statement is, if X does not build Z then it does not build Y.
I hope this helps a little.
@jinadarcy0610262 Okay, that makes much more sense for me - I saw both as possibilities but I thought that
"X can build Y and Z but cannot build Y if it doesnt also build Z"
would be written as "No X builds Y, but not Z". And with that, time for some coffee! Thanks for the clarification though; I appreciate it!
@alexandershort4891 idk, that makes it look like X can't build Y and Z which isn't how I see it. I see it as X can build Y and Z but cannot build Y if it doesnt also build Z
jdawg's approach was the other route I imagined possible... but I hesitated with that approach only because the grammar trips me up with this particular phrasing (aka, the lack of a comma). Good to know!
Hey Alex - how's it going? Long time no see - we should meet up sometime. I would look at this statement as "X builds Y, but not Z", with the 'No' negating all elements that follow.
I understand "X builds Y, but not Z" much more easily, and would write it as a single X with two arrows, one to Y and another to ~Z.
If there is no comma in the statement, I'd have to assume the "No" at the beginning applies to both elements.
So, "No X builds Y":
X -> ~Y
And "No (X builds Not Z)"
(X -> ~Z)
~X -> Z
Ultimately getting:
X -> ~Y and ~X -> Z
Although, admittedly, I'm certainly uncertain about my approach in this case.
if Y & /Z -> /x (i think)lol took me a minute to make sense of that, its saying X cannot build Y without building Z too