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
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 :)
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!
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