these messed me tf up

@IsabelSafar Disjunctions show alternative possibilities, while an embedded conditional shows a causal relationship.

"If M gets adopted, either O gets adopted or P gets adopted"

Disjunction: M-> (O or P)

There are 2 possible outcomes if M gets adopted - Either O gets adopted or P gets adopted.

An Embedded Conditional would be: M -> (/O -> P)

If M gets adopted, and O does not get adopted, then P gets adopted. This could also be structured the other way [M->(/P->O)] which would indicate if M gets adopted, and P does not get adopted, then O gets adopted.

The embedded conditional breaks down what the outcome of what one of the "or" could be. Some questions on the LSAT may be structured this way rather than as an "or" and this is a method to unpack/unembed it to better understand.

The Unembedded Conditional would be:

M and /O -> P (if M gets adopted and O does not get adopted then P gets adopted)

@epayne17 Yes, buying milk typically involves going to a store. However, the argument that is being presented is in fact that if he goes to the store, he will buy milk.

In this case going to the store is your sufficient condition/subset because it follows the indicator "if". It doesn't matter that realistically there's not many other places to buy milk (unless you live near dairy farms), the argument is presented in such a way that store is the subset and milk is the superset.

If it was phrased as "If I bought milk, then I've gone to the store" then your argument makes sense. But the argument has not been presented that way.

@iloveshoes2003 honestly I feel like in this case, that wouldn't be a wrong way to do it as long as it makes sense to you and you reach the same determination in the end.

@OwenTrela How I understood it was that we ended up confusing necessity and sufficiency - that AAF is necessary for SAS, but that it is not sufficient evidence to affirm that SAS.

@SauceBoss this is a great explanation!

This one feels so much more intuitive than the group 3 indicators.

@hhernan20228 Picturing it this way actually helped me immensely, thank you!

If I am at my desk studying for the LSAT, my cats will be sitting on my desk.

D -> C

If my cats are not sitting on my desk, then I am not at my desk studying for the LSAT.

/C -> /D

@bbcream I think it's translated to C->M because they are sets - Cats being the subset and mammals being the superset. Another way to think of it is since all cats are mammals: if one is a cat, then one is also a mammal, which mimics the Jedi form.

@MarisolSanchez (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but) I've thought of it this way:

The sufficient condition is something that needs to be sufficient to satisfy what you're talking about.

The necessary condition is required, or something necessary you must have.

@epayne17 Part of this is also picking out those indicator words.

He says: If I go to the store, then I will buy milk. "If" is a sufficient condition indicator. He's not saying he could buy milk - he will buy milk if the condition (going to the store) is met.

I’m so glad I wasn’t the only one who thought it was “some cultivars of corn” vs “other cultivars of corn”.

I think it really boils down to the use of “THAN TO most other cultivars of corn” which indicates we’re comparing the preceding option A: sorghum to the following option B: other cultivars of corn.

If it read “THAN most other cultivars of corn” it would indicate option A: some cultivars of corn vs option B: most other cultivars of corn.

The inclusion of the word “to” does a lot of heavy lifting and highlights the importance of picking up those key words.

This is incredibly helpful for deciphering a buttload of text. I’ve definitely found I get information overload and end up losing the key points.