How do you represent neither nor ?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/visual-representation-of-or-and-not-both-in-inout-games/

I want to quickly discuss a common type of causation argument that LSAC uses.

Here is an example:

Those who wear glasses are more likely than those who do not to have knee problems. To ensure good knee health, ditch the glasses.

We take a correlation and make a recommendation, seems pretty innocuous- maybe this is sound advice.

No! This advice is rooted in making an assumption. This assumption is a really bad reasoning error. It is assuming that wearing glasses is what causes knees to have problems. That is why the advice to stop wearing glasses to prevent knee damage is given. Notice how the argument never comes out and says "Glasses cause Knee problems", that would be too easy. The implicit assumption that the argument makes is inferring causation from correlation.

As we know, when A is correlated with B, there are 4 possibilities :

For our advice to ditch the glasses to work, we would need A to cause B, or, in other words, glasses to cause knee problems. If it really is the case that knee problems cause people to wear glasses (B causes A), then just stopping wearing glasses will do nothing, the advice would be terrible. Similarly, if genetics causes both knee problems and glasses and that is why we have our correlation, then taking glasses off will do nothing. In short, the only way our advice works is if glasses really do cause knee problems. We cannot say this is the case just based on the existence of a correlation, there are 3 other possibilities which are equally likely.

Boiled down to variables the argument goes like this:

**A is correlated with B

If you desire B, just do A.

or

If you want to prevent B, don't to A**

Well, for this advice to make sense, we must assume that A causes B and we cannot do that based on a correlation.

These questions are sometimes tricky because they make intuitive sense. They will really try to make the advice sound good, despite making a correlation causation error. Here is one last example:

People with a lot of sugar in their diets tend to get disease XYZ more often than those who do not. To lower your risk of XYZ, cut out sugar from your diet.

Well, we know sugar is bad for health, so this does not seem bad at all. BUT, this argument commits the error of taking a correlation and jumping to the conclusion that sugar is what is causing XYZ. This is done implicitly (hence to title of the post) and is not ok for the reasons discussed above!

PT 78 S3 Q21 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-3-question-21/) is a good example of this form and disguises the flaw with an argument that seems to make sense.

Hope this was helpful!

Basically, my issue is with the whole explanation from JY. But for discussion sake let's focus on Q23.

If you read the question paragraph or question stem without reading Q23, you will figure out that J and K are bidirectional i.e. cannot be in the same clinic together (proof below).

So my question is why is then Q23 can have A too as the right answer choice.

Proof

s and r are locations

Js -> Kr

~Kr -> ~Js

Ks -> Jr (because only s and r are there)

Therefore, Ks (-) Jr

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official January 2020 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the January 2020 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections. 🙆‍♀️

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

Hi there,

Could anyone please help me to understand why answer C is correct.

Thank you

Hi fellow 7Sagers :) it's my first time posting on here but would really appreciate your advice.

I'm scoring around low to mid 160s and BRing around 170-175 range. My biggest challenge is that my LR scores fluctuate a lot (from -2 to -7 per section before BR). I'm mostly missing level 4/5 questions that are logic heavy (e.g. parallel flawed question, method of reasoning, etc.). It takes me over 2 mins to answer these questions as I'm slow at drawing out conditional logic. So would like to ask if anyone scoring around my range benefited from going back to the core curriculum or any tips on being more accurate/fast at this types of questions? (drilling by question type, etc.) And any other tips on narrowing gap between actual to BR score would be much appreciated!

Thank you in advance!

Stmt: Either A or B is in the forest

Question: Is "either or" and "exclusive or" here ?

My Answer:

No, because atleast 1 has to be there but not both.

A B not both

0 0 0

0 1 1

1 0 1

1 1 0

My Discussion:

"Either or" is different than "not both" because "not both" truth table is below.

A B not both

0 0 1

0 1 1

1 0 1

1 1 0

Notice the 1st line is different in both truth tables.

Question for you guys:

please see if my logic is correct

Q7 here:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/inout-game-1-questions-part-1/

Are "noth both" and "neither nor" equivalent?

Hi,

When I did this question, I got stuck between B and D, even after I used the negation technique for assumption questions. Why exactly is D here wrong?

For context, I thought D could be an answer too because when voters are paying enough attention to make informed decisions, then they don't need the press to cover substantial policy issues for them, and thus then they don't need the campaign advisors to stay out of the limelight.

This question presents the cheetah as an exception to the coat pattern attributed to large cat species. From the stimulus, we know that Living/Hunting Habitats have an impact on the type of Coat a large cat has. We also know that, normally, Spotted Coat -> Habitat = trees and dappled forests. Meanwhile, Plain Coat -> Habitat = open plains.

Yet the Cheetah has a Spotted Coat, while living in the open plains. How come?

My problem with this question is that the most valid support for A (the correct answer) seems to be that it sharply distinguishes Cheetahs from all other large cats, which suggests "well, I guess cheetahs being weird regarding X helps explain why they're also weird regarding Y: they're just weird compared to normal large cats". But that still feels to me like A is just basically saying "ah, they're an anomaly because...they're an anomaly". If I asked this question to an expert on large cats, and answer choice A was his explanation, I'd just feel like it's another way of saying that he doesn't really have an explanation.

Another explanation for A that I've read is that "they don't rely on stealth, only purely speed, so it makes sense that they're in the open rather than in forests", but this, to me, seems to assume a lot about what kind of hunting strategy is most appropriate for large cats in forests. Regardless of whether it's true, I feel like we can't assume this based on the information on the stimulus.

I'm curious if anyone agrees with my assessment, or whether I am not assessing it the right way.

Thanks

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-04/

Hello,

Understanding we all have different time constraints, etc. - How long did it take you to perfect Logic Games (-1, - 0)? Any additional tips going through Logic Games?

Looking forward to hearing any input!

deleted

Has anyone brought their Cell Phone to the LSAT how strict are they this year compared to others.

When will the explanation videos for test 89 be posted?

I can't wrap around my head on the idea that the first rule implies that Guettierez MUST be on the aisle seat

It only say that Hoffman is behind guttierez aisle seat, and it would have been too risky to make an assumption that G is in the aisle only.

Hello!

As the January test comes around, I'm starting to get a bit anxious with my RC score. What used to be my strongest section is now my weakest, and I can't tell where I am going wrong.

Looking at the Analytics tab, Application Questions (Purpose of passage & "Consistent Principal) are where I am struggling with the most. Does anyone have any advice tackling this area, or is it just continuing to read & practice generally. Would really appreciate any insight people have gained on this section

Thank you in advance

I am having huge fluctuations from test to test with the LG section, sometimes scoring 20 but sometimes scoring 10. I would say I more often score closer to 10 but every couple tests I score 19-20. I certainly feel this difference while taking the tests as some are so clear while other games jumble me. I guess it just comes down to hammering more games until I get to consistently scoring around 20.

Wondering if anyone else is experiencing a flux like this?

Could someone please explain this for me.

I understand that

A's wrong because it doesn't paraphrase the MP completely

B and D's are wrong for obvious reasons.

I picked C but half-guessed it.

#help

Admin note: minor title edit; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I have struggled with translating biconditionals, so I have been drilling this skill using Manhattan Prep's "5lbs. Book of LSAT Practice Drills." Basically, you're given a conditional and asked to translate it. So far I have been getting them correct or have been able to identify where I went wrong. However, there's one particular part of the drill that I am stuck on, and was hoping someone could help me figure it out.

The statement reads, "If the trip includes Burkin Faso, it will include either Mali or Ghana, but not both."

My train of thought:

-"if" is Gl, sufficient

-"either or, but not both" is a biconditional indicator

BF- (----) M or G

/M and /G (-----) /BF

However, the answer key in the book says that the correct translation is:

BF------>M or G

M and G------>/B

/M and /G ------>/B

Why would this statement not be considered a biconditional? And why are there three possible answers?

Thanks in advance!

Hi guys,

Does anyone know how to approach this final game? Is it a three layer sequencing game? I was dumbfounded with the rule that none of V, W, Y, Z could be in a column (visit a country more than once).

Your help/explanation to approaching this LG would be very appreciated!

Thanks so much!

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - [brief description]"

So basically when I do a timed test or section I do shit like 11/25 and then I redo it without checking the answers and I get like 18/25. It’s like my own fear of a new section freaks me out. Does this happen to anyone else?! Anybody have suggestions?! I literally know how to do it and do fine but this happens because of my anxiety. Is it worth skimming each Q quickly first before tackling the section. Such a weird problem I know but I’m so close to my goal it drives me insane how I go from 150-160 because of this.

Hi, everyone,

Have trouble with this question. The correct answer choice C adds additional information ("climate fluctuations") which is not provided under the stimulus. Does it mean you can add additional information by guessing, however, this is not reliable technique? How to deal with this sort of questions?

Admin note: minor title edit; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hello,

In this particular question I was wondering between C and E.

Answer D is correct, however. I crossed out this question since D does not mention "benzene" and only "formaldehyde".

E choice looks the best because according to the passage, "houseplants remove some household toxins" which means that according to E the quantities will eventually decrease.

Answer C is also attractive since well-insulated house means a "warm" house and the same time "safe" since the houseplants "eliminate danger" as per stimulus.

Please #help

Why my logic is wrong and why the answer is D???

So I was doing games from PT 75 and up and the Pt 87,88 and 89 have games that are not the usual ones I was doing for practice. In order to be best prepared for games, are their any drill practice that i should do that can help me to prepare with recent style games?

Thanks!

I'm trying to wrap my head around why E counts as a weakener. I understand that this question hinges on this idea of 'city tax revenues'. and that some councillors think that city taxes should have benefits primarily to people who pay them. E theoretically weakens because this means anyone who works in Greenville and earns above a certain minimum has to pay a city wage tax of 5%, meaning they would have to pay the city too and ergo they should benefit from it. But it does require the assumption that these outside commuters are earning above the nationally mandated minimum. Why are we allowed to make this kind of assumption for this question? Or is it not an assumption at all -- rather that even the theoretical possibility of this already constitutes weakening?

I can kind of see that D is out of scope which means it's useless for the argument. Even if we assume that the voters in the city are taxpayers, we don't really care about their thoughts on increasing local taxes, and it doesn't really talk about increasing local taxes in the stimulus at all, just adjusting where those tax dollars go.