@Narmis The argument isn't valid in your example because being tall isn't necessary for being good at baseball (at least not according to your premise). So while knowing someone is tall is sufficient to know they play baseball, knowing someone plays baseball is not sufficient to know they are tall.
Instead, it would be
T ---> B (if one is tall, they must be good at baseball)
@LauraGoia hi! also from michigan, planning to take mine january 2026!
0
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
@Narmis The argument isn't valid in your example because being tall isn't necessary for being good at baseball (at least not according to your premise). So while knowing someone is tall is sufficient to know they play baseball, knowing someone plays baseball is not sufficient to know they are tall.
Instead, it would be
T ---> B (if one is tall, they must be good at baseball)
which can be arranged to:
/B ---> /T
so if....
/B ---> /T
and Maia (/B)
then
Maia (/T).