Example: If someone makes excessive noise on a weekday, then either they will receive a violation, or they have not yet been caught.

Rule: ENW → (V or /C)

translation: ENW → (C→V)

suff. conj.: ENW and C → V

Translation: If you make excessive noise on a weekday and get caught, you will then receive violation.

Honestly I made myself flash cards just to identify common language such as "only, only if, must, cannot, etc." and the translation rule for what immediately follows those words. This, at the very least, helped me to start identifying common phrases or concepts to get my bearings.

Feel free to use this if you think it might help you: https://knowt.com/flashcards/12084d77-81bd-44c1-b570-cd7d31292faf

Can someone help me with disjunction in the necessary condition? How is it possible that if I say something like

If it's Tuesday, then the store has a sale on liquor or tomatoes

Tu → Li or To

How could OR be used in this way and it's a possibility that on a Tuesday they run a sale on both liquor and tomatoes? Wouldn't OR mean that it needs to be one or the other, but cannot be both?

Regardless of whether or not there is context, a conclusion/premise may appear as a part of a sentence in any texts on the LSAT.

Since I don't want to use up all of my practice tests - I asked Chat GPT to help me with a prompt and some perspectives that may mimic the post-August version. I used this prompt to Can you generate an argumentative writing prompt that mocks what may appear on an LSAT writing portion, modified to the current post-2024 format and provide 3-4 sample perspectives?

Here's what it came up with, and feel free to use it as a practice-run for yourself. I thought this was not only helpful, but amusing to read and useful as practice material.

Writing Sample Prompt:

Recent studies conducted in the fictional city of Indecisia have revealed a sharp rise in what researchers are calling Choice Paralysis in Low-Stakes Contexts (CPLC). Citizens report significant stress when faced with decisions perceived as meaningless but socially loaded — such as choosing between identical brands of bottled water or whether to say “you too” when someone tells them to “enjoy the movie.”

In response, the city council is debating whether public institutions should play a more active role in helping citizens build confidence in making minor decisions. Some argue that such support would foster a stronger, more self-assured population. Others contend that this would represent an overreach of government authority and an unnecessary use of resources.

Assignment:

Write an argumentative essay in which you take a position on whether public institutions should actively intervene to help citizens improve their confidence in making trivial decisions. Support your position with logical reasoning and, if applicable, examples. Your essay should demonstrate clarity, organization, and critical thinking. You are not expected to have specialized knowledge of psychology, civic planning, or snack aisle dilemmas.

Perspective 1: Supportive of Intervention — Confidence Is Foundational

Public institutions have a responsibility to foster the psychological well-being of their citizens. Seemingly minor choices can accumulate and impact an individual’s sense of agency. By helping citizens build decision-making confidence, even in low-stakes contexts, society encourages personal growth and civic engagement.

Perspective 2: Opposed to Intervention — Government Has Bigger Problems

Allocating resources to help people choose between sparkling and still water is not a prudent use of taxpayer money. Public institutions should focus on serious issues like education, infrastructure, and healthcare. Encouraging resilience means expecting individuals to handle life’s minor dilemmas on their own.

Perspective 3: Cautiously Supportive — Help, But Only If It's Funny

Assistance with trivial decisions could be helpful if it’s delivered in a light, humorous way. Imagine public signs that read “If you’re still deciding, pick left” or vending machines with buttons labeled “Don’t overthink it.” This approach could reduce stress without creating a bloated bureaucracy or infantilizing the public.

Perspective 4: Strongly Opposed — Choice Paralysis Builds Character

Struggling with low-stakes decisions is a rite of passage in modern life. The agony of choosing between two equally mediocre salad dressings builds mental toughness. Institutional hand-holding in such matters may rob people of the minor frustrations that prepare them for adulthood — and worse, it may normalize the idea that discomfort must always be solved externally.

Valid, or invalid?

If Bruno Mars sings The Lazy Song, then he will not do anything today. Bruno Mars always doesn't feel like picking up his phone when he sings The Lazy Song. When I called Bruno Mars, he picked up the phone. Therefore, he must have not sung The Lazy Song Today.

If Bruno Mars sings The Lazy Song (TLS), then he will not do anything today (DA).

TLS→/DA

Bruno Mars must not feel like picking up his phone (P) because he sung The Lazy Song (TLS).

TLS→/P OR

P→/TLS

When I called Bruno Mars (CBM), he picked up the phone (P).

CBM→P

Therefore, he must have not sung The Lazy Song Today.

CBM→P→/TLS

Valid Argument

I think it would still be invalid... I'm open to #feedback since this is a new concept for me as well.

The vote to grant Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers will not pass only if Senator Amidala delivers her speech.

/P→SAS

Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails.

SAS→AAF

Her assassins planted a bomb on her starship but unbeknownst to them, she was not on the ship when the explosive detonated.

AAF

Therefore, the vote to grant the Chancellor emergency powers will not pass.

/P→SAS

/SAS→P

SAS→AAF

/SAS→/AAF

AAF

If the assassination attempt fails, it doesn't guarantee that Senator Amidala will give her speech which means the emergency powers may pass. That's confusing sufficient with necessary conditions. Something that would be a valid argument within your example is saying something like if the vote doesn't pass, then the assassination attempt failed.

Here's how I understood it:

Plants will grow only if you give them water. (P→W)

Invalid argument: If I give my plant water, then it will grow.

It's invalid because giving my plant water doesn't absolutely guarantee it will grow. It could grow, or it could be outside of the subset and not grow even though I gave it water. But I know that if my plant is growing, then I definitely gave it water because that's necessary for plant growth.

Every rose has its thorn (R→T)

Just like every night has its dawn (N→D)

If you are from Ghana, it's inferred that you're from Africa. Being African is a necessary condition of being Ghanian. If you're not from Ghana, it doesn't necessarily mean you're not African. But if you're not African, you're definitely not Ghanian.

#feedback I'm glad you added the basketball analogy. I didn't really understand the argument until that was used as another example.

Since it's a hot Friday night, Glorilla will act up. Glorilla acts up when it's 7pm Friday and it's 95 degrees. I ain't got no man and no man ain't got me.

Conclusion: Glorilla will act up.

Premises: It's a hot friday night. Glorilla acts up when it's 7pm Friday and it's 95 degrees.

Context: I ain't got no man and no man ain't got me.

#feedback Pleeeeeeease give us functionality to highlight sections of text.