How do you create the wrong answer template?

Is there a live class for foundations and beginning tips and tricks to cover up to this point so far? Sometimes reading the lessons vs. video explanations poses more questions...just wondering if there is a class where questions can be answered live. Or to see some walk-throughs.

I think I'm confusing the difference between the contrapositive and negating...

I don't understand how:

/(P <-s-> C) does not equal /P <-s->/C

Why does the slash only distribute to C and how do we know to only distribute it to C?

@everleez

It is always...

SUFFICIENT CONDITION --> NECESSARY CONDITION

[see "Lawgic the Language" Lesson]

The first element in Lawgic I want to introduce is this thing "→" which we will call "the arrow." The → establishes a conditional relationship between whatever sits on either side of it.

The → points from a sufficient condition (left side) to a necessary condition (right side). If those conditions just happen to be subsets and supersets well, then the arrow points from the subset to the superset.

For me, the video lesson helps more so than the written one; but, I pasted the written lesson above.

I liked that these examples showed conditional indicators that don't always act in that capacity. It helps to be able to practice distinguishing when it acts as an indicator and when it's just a word. I like to bold and underline indicators and italicize them when they are just a word as I do these practice questions.

To be a Jedi, one must be a Force user. Becoming a Force user requires years of training, which further requires extraordinary discipline. Tom has only received six months of training in the Force. Therefore, Tom ____.

• "Only" does not act as an indicator

The vote to grant Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers will not pass if Senator Amidala delivers her speech. Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails. Her assassins planted a bomb on her starship but unbeknownst to them, she was not on the ship when the explosive detonated. Therefore, the vote to grant the Chancellor emergency powers will not pass.

• "Cannot" does not act as an indicator

@Elideebeep Thanks for sharing!

Reposting my comment from before because I'm re-reviewing...

What helps me is to think of it like this:

A valid or invalid argument depends on the STRUCTURE of the argument! The truth of the claim does not matter. A valid argument can have false claims.

So: If A then B. X is A. Therefore, X is B. (Valid)

But: If A then B. X is C. Therefore, X is A. (invalid) -- this is invalid because we don't know the relationship between C and A.

If this same argument read like:

If A then B. If C then also A. X is C. Therefore, X is A. (it becomes valid)

because of the structure. I try to avoid the word "truth" all together:

If a person is a boy (if A), then the person is a bottle of lotion (then B). If one smells like vanilla (if C) then one is also a boy (then also A). Samantha smells like vanilla (X is a member of C), therefore Samantha is a boy. (X is A).

Technically, this is a valid argument...but far from the truth. But the structure allows for the conclusion to logically follow the premises.

You really have to train the brain to leave the real world at the door.

@AidenG123 Sorry just seeing this, yes! There are many ways to make an argument valid.

Another thing that can help me is to write it out side by side. The boy is the sufficient condition/subset to Lotion (Necessary condition/Superset) in P1. Then in P2, the lotion is a sufficient condition/subset to Vanilla (Necessary condition/Superset). So, here you have lotion as both a superset and subset which is fine [see lesson on sets].

In some cases, it can be helpful to write the premises in one row:

P1:Boy (A) --> Lotion (B) ; P2: Lotion (B) --> Vanilla (C);

Therefore: Boy (A) --> Vanilla (C)

For me, writing it side by side when it is simple like this, makes it easier to see that the conclusion is guaranteed. In your example we can literally see the conclusion.

Boy (A) --> Lotion (B) --> Vanilla (C) [see lesson on chaining arguments]

Hey, I'm in the bay (Marin side) but happy to meet up or virtually study. Prepping for April LSAT.

WOW. So, I studied on my own for the first LSAT I did and always saw this notation but constantly messed it up because I didn't know that the arrow itself had this rule. This is such a big clarity moment.

CRAZY

What helps me is to think of it like this:

An valid or invalid argument depends on the STRUCTURE of the argument!

So: If A then B. X is A. Therefore, X is B. (Valid)

But: If A then B. X is C. Therefore, X is A. (invalid) -- this is invalid because we don't know the relationship between C and A.

If this same argument read like:

If A then B. If C then also A. X is C. Therefore, X is A. (it becomes valid)

because of the structure. I try to avoid the word "truth" all together:

If a person is a boy (if A), then the person is a bottle of lotion (then B). If one smells like vanilla (if C) then one is also a boy (then also A). Samantha smells like vanilla (X is a member of C), therefore Samantha is a boy. (X is A).

Technically, this is a valid argument...but far from the truth. But the structure allows for the conclusion to logically follow the premises.

@giannabolla Right! I'm glad someone caught the reference!

@KalynnBriles Yeah! I felt the same way. I just knew it was a premise and premises add support. The alternative is based on the (smallest) distinction between the private funding and the public funding.

Because private won't do ... , public funds should be used.

All front row volleyball players are tall. Harper Murray is a front row volleyball player. Therefore, Harper is tall. All front row volleyball players block at the net. Thus, Harper must also block at the net.

@Chex

Attempting to help (but here is the best way I can describe it):

Remembering the definition of an argument helps me:

An argument is a persuasive set of claims that consists of at least one premise that supports at least one conclusion. The relationship within an argument—that of support—is the most important relationship on the test.

If the conclusion read: "Walt has probably never been to the Magical Kingdom," Then there are still premises that support the conclusion; but the relationship of the support to the conclusion is weak and/or flawed; the argument would be invalid.

If "Walt has probably never been to the Magical Kingdom," was the conclusion then the LSAT would test why the relationship of support to the question is flawed. The question-stem type would most likely change from Must be true to a strengthen/weaken (which of the following strengthens the argument) or other ID the flaw (which of the following best explains the flaw in this argument).