@CYS1123 "If you arrive early, you will get a good seat."

Does that imply that if you don't arrive early, you won't get a good seat?

@sapalmeri Which two statements are you referring to? I ask because some of the statements discussed do in fact mean the same thing (they're contrapositives of each other). But another pair of statements doesn't mean the same thing and in fact are commonly confused as meaning the same thing.

@MatthewChoi Play out your question and explore it.

Let's say the conditional is A --> B

What information would contradict that conditional?

What's the contrapositive? /B --> /A

What information would contradict that conditional? (It should be the exact same as what would contradict the first conditional, because A --> B and /B --> /A mean the same thing).

@Kevin Lin Not ready yet...but very soon. Very, very soon.

@AlexHaro No dogs can fly.

There are 2 concepts: dogs, and fly

Pick one of them, negate it, and make that negated concept the necessary condition.

Let's pick "dogs", negate it and make it the necessary condition:

If it flies --> NOT a dog

Or, you can pick "fly". Negate that, make it the necessary condition (right side of the arrow).

If it's a dog --> NOT fly

@JonathanKennedy22 Makes sense. Recognize that the concept "A" and "B" don't necessarily have to have a causal/timing relationship in the same way as the two dominos, though.

"If you got an A, you must have studied."

Here, A implies having studied. But A doesn't "cause" the studying to happen, and the A didn't happen before the studying. But we know that if someone got an A, then it must be true that they studied.

@Laura Bolivar https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/group-1-sufficient-condition-indicators

There's a difference between "The only" and "only." "The only" introduces a sufficient condition.

The only students who studied got As.

= studied --> As

Only students who studied got As.

As --> studied

@Chloe106 Yes, certain words (such as "therefore") make something a conclusion/premise. That's how a set of statements that doesn't otherwise seem like an argument would become one.

@samrh I'd encourage you to skip ahead to the LR unit and come back only if you feel you would benefit later. Or, just start incorporating a timed section every week. The specific issues discussed in this unit (conditional and set logic) apply to a handful of questions in each section, but not most. That may be why it's difficult to see how they apply right now.

@CMas We have to start with the basics. It would help to lay out your thought process.

Can you explain how you are thinking about this question?

What's the conclusion? Why does the author believe the conclusion must be true? Why is that reasoning flawed (in other words, why might the conclusion be false even if we accept the premises as true)?

This is where you have to start to better understand this question.

@CollinEsquirol Can you explain your thinking on B and why you think it must be true based on the given statements?

It was originally PT2, Section 4. Since LG sections were removed, we split up some of the oldest PTs (PT1 through 6) to add a 4th experimental section to other older PTs. That way, you can take those older PTs as full 4-section tests.

@MnM We didn't add anything significant to Comprehensive since December -- if you're sure you were almost complete before, I think it's OK to just keep PTing/drilling.

@Paige You actually do have time on the test to do this (with enough practice). Usually there would only be 1 or maybe 2 questions on a test where chaining conditionals is involved.

@JodiChan "No one can be a doctor without being hard-working"

That means if you are a doctor, then you must be hard-working.

If that makes sense, map the same structure back onto this:

"No one can be worthy of power without being pure of heart."

(One mistake you might be making is thinking of conditionals in a causal sense. That might be why it feels awkward to say that "worthy" implies "pure heart" (because it seems like one's purity should be something that contributes to one's worthiness). But the left side doesn't cause the right side to be true. It just means, if the left side is true, then we can conclude that the right side is also true.)

@NyahStewart Yes (assuming the causal statement doesn't say something like "X always causes...")

A one-time event or series of events doesn't prove that something is inevitable or guaranteed.

@CMas With B, we still don't have any reason to think Penn should not receive the award.

We have a principle that you should receive the award if the act save someone's life and you went above and beyond and you're eligible.

But we don't have any way of reaching the conclusion that someone should NOT receive the award aside from showing that they're ineligible. But B doesn't show that Penn is ineligible. So how can we conclude that he shouldn't get the award?

@AndrewPhillips Did you do the stare?

@OwenTrela "THE" is the key

"The only As are B" = A --> B

Only As are B = B --> A

@TabithaTomlinson Thanks, fix will be in soon.

@SMRegalado Thanks, fix will be in soon.

@AkshayaAnnampedu When you have "No...unless" or "No...without", then "no" acts as a negation of teh concept it's attached to. We should follow the "unless" (group 3) rule:

No X unless Y

"no X" and "y" are the two concepts

Negate one of them and put it on the sufficient side:

X --> Y

/Y --> /X

@AkshayaAnnampedu It depends on how it's used.

"No one who works hard will fail"

Work hard --> NOT fail

Fail --> NOT work hard

Here you can think of "no" using the "negate necessary" rule -- "no" negates what you put in the necessary condition.

"No A is B"

A --> /B

B --> /A

But "no" can also be used as a negation of the concept it's connected to:

"I went to the restaurant with no reservation"

That's not a conditional relationship. It's just saying I went to the restaurant and did not have a reservation.

@joshuali Still not causal, because it doesn't assert why they are the most popular.

Think about it like this:

"All the people named Johnny are the most popular."

Does that mean being named Johnny causes them to be the most popular? No.

"The best players are the most popular."

Does that mean being the best is what causes them to be the most popular? No.

Yup, from the mouth of LSAC:

https://www.lsac.org/lsat/prepare/types-lsat-questions/reading-comprehension

The reading selection will be either a single reading passage or two related shorter passages (commonly called comparative reading). A Reading Comprehensive [sic] section will include either 3 or 4 single reading passages, and either one or no comparative reading passages.