Do we not need to unpack the "if transferred to CD" statement for answer E? I got really confused because I thought it was an embedded conditional
@LauraByrne Thank you Laura for the explanation!
@ditalaw94 I quite literally love you!!!!! You got this too!
@isojess1 That's a great tip! Thanks so much for your support!!!
I got 164 on my first PT which took 8hours, 163 on my second PT which took 4.5 hours, and 160 on my third PT which took 3.5hours GAHHHHHHHHHHHH IM JUST GETTING FASTER AT GETTTING MORE WRONG ANSWERSSSSSSSSSSSSS but live laugh love, I'm going to cry in my bathroom
@OwenVioli Hi! I think they are slightly different because "Not all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can" means that there exists at least one small animal that moves slower or at the same speed as large animals. In contrast, "Larger animals move more rapidly or move equally rapidly" is a stronger claim that rules out the possibility of any large animal being slower than small animals. IDK if that made sense or if that's right so if someone else can chime in that would be much appreciated!
@hectordbc Thank you so much for your explanation! I'm still confused as to why "not" and "it is not the case" can sound the same in English but have different meanings in logic! But I really appreciate your help and I'll need to revisit this question with my logic professor!
@SaraWaite Thanks so much for explaining! Really appreciate it!
@yasamham Thanks so so much for responding! I really appreciate it! I'm going to double check with my logic professor but I would assume they're the same thing idk
Hi! My question is about the Question #5
The original sentence is: "Chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."
I understand that a proper negation would be something like: "Either something else is a more appropriate analogy for reporting on political campaigns than chess is, or something else ties with chess as being the most appropriate." or "It is not the case that chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."
However, I was wondering why wouldn't a simpler negation like "Chess is not the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns" be sufficient? Is there a meaningful difference between the two, or do they functionally mean the same thing in formal logic?
Thank you so much for your time and help!
Hi! My question is about the Question #5 on Skill Builder - Negation 3 in the Foundations module----
The original sentence is: "Chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."
I understand that a proper negation would be something like: "Either something else is a more appropriate analogy for reporting on political campaigns than chess is, or something else ties with chess as being the most appropriate." or "It is not the case that chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."
However, I was wondering why wouldn't a simpler negation like "Chess is not the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns" be sufficient? Is there a meaningful difference between the two, or do they functionally mean the same thing in formal logic?
Thank you so much for your time and help!
wait is this lesson not like the others in that we don't really have to translate it into lawgic but just directly into English? Like for question 4 shouldn't the negation include a "some" statement because we are negating "all small animals"?
wait I kind of don't get why we have to use these frameworks like can't we just say that the "all residents of the Beresford" is the domain and translate the rest like : if you have a Pet-->medical pupose. Any guidance would be appreciated!
writing the contrapositive really helps!
Thank you for clarifying in the video that "without" isn't actually a conditional indicator in Q3 sentence 2!
This lesson is really confusing me because why do we have to separate them into three meanings and do the negate sufficient indicators apply to all three?
ngl this question had me bamboozled
I was confused about D as well! I thought that being obnoxious caused them to acquire expensive tastes, and the action of having expensive taste showed that they were obnoxious. However, the passage is just saying that buying expensive things (cause) results in excessiveness (effect). GAHHHHH im still confused but I literally asked chatgpt to explain it to me like im 5
IM ABOUT TO HAVE A BRAIN ANEUYRIYSMSDMMSMSMMSMMSMSMMSMM GAHHHHHHHHHH LOCK IN JAN LSAT BUT IM STILL TAKING A LONG TIME AND THIS ISNT CLICKINGGGGGGGG---but good luck to everyone else :)