@

Understood. My problem was that "evaluating legislation" *is* descriptively accurate for what we're doing in the stimulus. In the stimulus, we certainly do consider the consequence of passing (the harm done to free speech when we censor) vs. the consequences of not passing (the overall damage done by violent TV programs). We consider the relative harms that result from both.

Where we're missing a link, however, is in getting from the fact that there is a discrepancy between relative dangers to "it is not inconsistent to support both *despite* the discrepancy."

I think that assuming that freedom of speech falls under basic freedoms is an assumption that may work in pseudo sufficient questions, as here - as opposed to SA questions - we're asked to consider not (1) A --> B, (2) A, (3) B but rather (1) A --> B, (2) A', (3) B or B'

@.lopez :

Method 1

CM = Cold Medicine

NW = Nip Whiskey

SC = Stop Crying

We have: SC --> (( CM v NW ) & ~ (CM & NW) )

Negating it we do

~ (CM v NW) v (CM & NW)

Which turns into:

(~CM & ~NW) v (CM & NW) --> ~SC

---

Method 2

Alternatively, the statement Cold Medication or a Nip of Whiskey But not both could be translated as

~CM (-) NW (Remembering our biconditional rules)

This is because we're really combining two things. Cold Medicine or a Nip of Whiskey and not both. Which would be:

(1) CM v NW

(2) ~ (CM & NW)

But in 7sage, we learn this as:

(1) ~CM --> NW

(1b) ~ NW --> CM

(2) CM --> ~NW

(2b) NW --> ~CM

Combining (1) and (2b), we get: ~CM (-) NW

Combining (1b) and (2), we get: ~NW (-) CM

Note that both of these are equivalent to each other bc they're just contrapositives. Now, the statement we have reads as:

SC --> ~CM (-) NW

The contrapositive would be:

~ (~CM (-) NW) --> ~SC

When we say that it is not the case that a biconditional exists, we're really stating that:

~ ( (~CM --> NW) & (NW --> ~CM) )

Which of course turns into

~ (~CM --> NW) v ~ (NW --> ~CM)

Using Demorgan's Law, we translate to:

(~CM & ~NW) v (NW & CM)

Remembering the necessary condition, we add to get:

(~CM & ~NW) v (NW & CM) --> ~SC

Note that this is exactly the same result as step 1 above. This is an instance in which you could save a shit ton of time if you translate the thing into lawgic not using conditionals/biconditionals... but just as simple or and and statements and remembering your rules.

@

Thank you very much! That helped a great deal. I didn't realize that this was a PSA question. Thanks for clearing it up :)

For others who are having the same problem as me:

We have the premise that:

(P1) The damage done by violent programs when we don't censor > the decrease in free speech that results when we do censor

(P2) ???

(C) It is not inconsistent to support both freedom of speech and limiting violence done on TV programs

----

When we look at it like this, answer choice (A) doesn't provide the bridge we need to get from P1 to C, while B clearly does.

Thanks again @ !

----

I just thought of a better way to think about this!

(P1) The damage done by violent programs when we don't censor > the decrease in free speech that results when we do censor

(P2) ???

(C) It is not inconsistent to support both freedom of speech and limiting violence done on TV programs

Now, we want (P2) to say something like: If there is an ovveriding interest --> it is not inconsistent to support both freedom of speech and limiting violence done on TV programs

This is because (P1) is an example of an overriding interest. if you combine answer choice (B) with P1, you are able to arrive at the conclusion. With answer choice (A), you cannot. There is the small jump you have to make that says that (P1) actually *is* an example of an overriding interest, and that's what makes this a PSA and not SA question.

Wow revelations!

Yes, exactly. It's worth mentioning that lemurs aren't birds, also.

What I'm saying is this. The answer choice (D) says:

(1) There are 2x rainforest lemurs than deciduous lemurs

We're asked to solve why

(2) We see more deciduous lemurs at night than we see rainforest lemurs

So... even under your line of reasoning, if it were simply the case that because there are more of one type of lemur than another... it doesn't account for the fact that answer choice (D) says that there are 2x RAINFOREST LEMURS than deciduous lemurs. But we're not looking to explain why there are more rainforest lemurs... we're asked to resolve why there are more deciduous lemurs at night.

The second point is this. We don't know off the top of our head whether or not the scientists are even accounting for total number of lemurs. So like, let's say that we simply see more of one type of lemur at night than the other. How do you know that the scientists aren't stating that they're seeing, for example:

(3) 20% of 200 rainforest lemurs = 40 rainforest lemurs at night

(4) 40% of 100 deciduous lemurs = 40 deciduous lemurs at night

(Here, we see a greater % of deciduous lemurs out at night even despite the fact that there are 2x as many rainforest lemurs. We're asked to figure out the percentage, I think, rather than the total number. As you see, changing the total number of lemurs (200 rainforest v. 100 deciduous) doesn't really account for anything or resolve anything if the % are as followed).

??? In this instance, the rainforest lemur population is 2x that of the deciduous lemurs. We don't know whether we're talking about simply seeing more of a percentage of deciduous lemurs or more of a total number of deciduous lemurs. Neither the answer choice nor the stimulus indicate either way. But you're making an assumption that this statement means a specific thing, and you want to be wary of introducing assumptions that have no basis in ur answer choices.

Oh! Lol. No, J.Y. just transcribes those out because he doesn't want to rewrite the entire question. They're meant to substitute for the actual question so as to not take up space on the video.

You're not meant to transcribe the questions as he does. That's just so that he can give you the question and each answer without wasting valuable visual space on the lesson video with the full question. On the test, you'll have the question in front of you so yeah... you don't have to do it

I don't recall JY saying that either.

Okay. So in order to figure out why (D) is wrong, let's figure out why (B) is correct. This is a classic Resolve, Reconcile, Explain question type.

We've got two populations of lemurs. One lives in the deciduous forest, where canopy disappears during the winter, and one lives in the rainforest, which maintains a thick canopy throughout the winter months.

We're attempting to resolve the following discrepancy: why are the deciduous lemurs more nocturnally active than the rainforest lemurs?

(A) is wrong because it talks about primary competitors for food for both populations being active in daylight. So what? We care about why deciduous lemurs are more active AT NIGHT than are rainforest lemurs. Scratch this out. This answer would explain why both are active at night, but not resolve the discrepancy we need it to.

(B) is right. Let's say that there exists a predator for both lemur populations that uses its eyesight to catch lemurs during the daytime. Both lemur populations would want to hunt at night. Now, because of the canopy in the rainforest, more rainforest lemurs would be able to hunt in the morning because they'd be shielded from view from the predators. Thus, less have to hunt at night. The same can't be said for the deciduous lemurs. Since the canopy is gone (and therefore their natural protection from predators), more would have to hunt at night than in the deciduous forest.

(C) is wrong. We're on the right track bc we're talking about predators. But it's the canopy difference (and consequently the difference in the forests) in the two lemur populations and its relation to why deciduous lemurs hunt more at night than do rainforest lemurs that we're attempting to reconcile. This is also wrong for the same reason (A) is. We care about why one group of lemurs is MORE ACTIVE at night than the other group. This would just explain why they're both active at night.

(D) Your answer choice is incorrect. Think about it. The rainforest lemurs hunt LESS at night than do the deciduous lemurs. So even if it were the case that we see more lemurs hunting in the rainforest, this would mean that we'd see more rainforest lemurs at night than we see deciduous lemurs at night. If this is too strong, the question still arises that if (D) is correct, why don't we see more rainforest lemurs hunting at night than do deciduous lemurs if the rainforest lemur population is 2x that of the deciduous'? But that has the relationship completely backwards. Actually, we see more deciduous lemurs hunting at night. Also, you're making the assumption that "significantly more pronounced" in the stimulus means "we see more of them at X time." But this is ALSO wrong for the reasons I've just stated. It mixes the lemurs up.

In other words the mistake I think you're making is this. The stimulus could very well be stating that we see 20% of rainforest lemurs hunting at night and 40% of deciduous lemurs hunting at night. Why is there a difference in percentage in relation to respective lemur populations? Even if it were the case that we see more literal lemurs hunting at night in the deciduous forest than the rainforest, the question still arises whether these numbers constitute a greater or lesser percentage of respective lemur populations... etc. We don't know whether we're talking about absolute number of lemurs or a discrepancy in the percentage of lemurs in each instance.

(E) In J.Y.'s words, who the fuck cares about whether rain forest lemurs are eating plants and insects or what the fuck.

@

Also, when doing LG games sometimes you have to cross off certain game pieces. Let's say you have a game with pieces A,B,C,D,E,F. And on a particular question, you know that F & E are grouped together, B and one other are grouped, etc. etc.

Keeping a mental track in your head of: Okay, I know B is grouped with one other, F&E are already grouped so I don't need to group them, these others are floating... allows more room for error than taking the 5 seconds to write them down and cross out so you never make a silly mistake.

@

No problem! Yes. If you (1) don't criticize your own behavior or (2) vow to stop it or (3) both then you should not criticize other's behavior. Because if you're doing (3) both, you're simply stating that in this world, you simultaneously (1) don't criticize your own behavior and also (2) vow to stop it. If it's true that either one of these two is sufficient to entail the conclusion, then having both of them is just icing on the cake!

On the LSAT, as J.Y. says, we're usually given inclusive ors. If they want to give you an exclusive or, they'll tell you, "either x or y but not both" which would translate to x (-) /y if I'm correct.

@ I would think it's exclusive because "vows to stop" implies that one has already self-criticized that behavior.

I don't think you can make this assumption. Let's say that my friend tells me to stop borrowing his car. Now, I may not see anything wrong about borrowing his car and therefore don't self-criticize said action. But I can vow to stop it, simply because he's my friend and it's his car.

The question is whether vowing to stop an action --> self-criticism of such action. But we can think of plenty of scenarios in which we vow to stop doing something even if we don't think that that action is wrong or we did anything wrong by committing said action.

E.g., someone who gets away with a petty theft charge who vows to the judge never to do it again but doesn't think what he did was wrong.

Your translation is incorrect. The negation does not carry over to vow, as ~vow to stop it would mean that you're NOT vowing to stop it.

I believe that this is an inclusive or. Here's why:

(1) If one does not criticize a form of behavior in oneself (let's call this CFB)

(2) or vow to stop it (let's call this VSI)

So we have: If ~CFB OR VSI --> One should not criticize that form of behavior in another.

Now, this conditional is fulfilled if we either don't criticize a form of behavior in oneself or vow to stop it. But if we fulfill both these conditions, the conclusion still follows. For example:

(1) ~ a or b --> c

(2) ~a

(3) b

(4) ~a & b (conjoining 2 & 3)

Therefore

(5) c because of (1) and (2)

or c because of (3) and (1)

Another way to think about it from JY's examples

If you invite either John or Harry to the party, I'll give you a beer.

Let's say you invite John AND Harry to the party. Well, I'm giving you the beer, cause I didn't specify but not both.

@ I hear JY's voice saying "What?! Why do we care?! Oldest trick in the book!"

Oh god I love this. Or when you see a right answer and go there ya go C is the correct choice xD

Hilarious. JY is a god

I was in a similar boat to you. I attended one of those top-10 colleges with a (9% acceptance rate. I got two questions wrong on my SAT, and perfect scores on math and writing. I got a 156 on my first diagnostic.

This was incredibly heartbreaking for me. Confidence wise, I felt shattered. (i)Damn, I thought to myself, all my life I considered myself the naturally smart kid. What gives?

The thing about the LSAT is that it is incredibly humbling. You need a little bit of natural intelligence and work ethic to really succeed on the test. In my opinion, neither on their own is sufficient to give you a 170+. Hell, maybe there are some LG geniuses out there that defy my theory, but I haven't found that to be the case for me.

I decided to dedicate myself to studying for the LSAT with 7sage. Previously, I'd tried both Powerscore and Blueprint. Neither really worked for me. The biggest hurdle for me was getting over the sense that if I fucked up on the LSAT, I was a failure.

Unfortunately, the only way to improve is to know just how much you need to improve by. You need to know your origin to understand how best to reach your destination. This is humbling, heart breaking, confidence shattering work. But it needs to be done. Because you need to face reality and move from there.

The LSAT is a bitch. There's no doubt about it. I've given my life over the past few months to this damn test, and it's negatively affected my social life, relationship (now ex relationship), etc. But I know that I want to be a lawyer. And I know that I will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

What helps me in terms of motivation is: (1) watching silly shows like Suits or The Grinder or Better Call Saul to remind me that this is something I WANT. Also (2) taking some time off from studying to remind myself that there's an outside world. Reconnecting with friends helps a lot. And of course (3) treating yourself.

This isn't easy. A lot of people/your peers won't understand why you're doing what you're doing... and they'll only be able to offer banal platitudes to cheer you up. At the end of the day though, if this is something you want, then go out there and get it.

Good luck!

JY writes out translations for LR sections (Government Economics as GE) merely to translate to logic (or lawgic for us 7sagers) to show you the type of thinking you need to be doing to solve questions. Once you become adept at this, you don't need to do it all on paper... obviously.

The only time where it'd be useful is if you're digging through a tough stimulus with a lot of wording and you want to decipher exactly the lawgic being used (say for an SA or PSA question). Or, when you're practicing LR, simply to re-inforce the logic in your head for test day.

Gotcha. Thanks for the help people!

This is how I see it. The mistake here is that we're assuming that just because we can interpret the world/certain concepts in a particular way, that the world actually DOES operate under those concepts.

For example, I can understand the world by systematizing it under a Marxian lens. I can view the economy as the stealing of labor from the working class, etc. Now, just because I can interpret the world in this way, does that mean that the world actually DOES operate this way?

The mistake in both this question and in the example I showed above is that, the mere fact that we can interpret the world using a specific lens doesn't mean that that lens actually exists. Likewise, just because I can understand altruistic acts as being motivated to reinforce the belief that I'm useful and needed (which would increase my self esteem), doesn't mean that a connection actually exists between altruism and my need to be useful and needed. It's one hypothesis, but it's not necessarily the only hypothesis or the correct hypothesis. It's just one theory.

Another example. The mere fact that I can understand the world according to general relativity is not sufficient to state that the world actually does operate according to general relativity.

Another example. Being able to interpret a specific connection between two objects or understand the relationship between two objects in a specific way does not necessitate that these objects/concepts be related in the manner in which I interpret them to be.

Or, if you like: It is not the case that because I can understand my existence as the manifestation of God's will that my existence actually is a manifestation of God's will.

Yes.

/J(-)L breaks down into two conditionals:

(1) /J --> L

(2) L --> /J

Let's take the contrapositives of each.

(1b) /L --> J

(2b) J --> /L

We can combine (1b) and (2b) to form the following biconditional:

(2) /L (-) J , or as you put it, J (-) /L

We can do this because contrapositives are logically equivalent propositions.

So I'm currently enrolled in Blueprint and 7sage, but I primarily use 7sage. Here are the biggest differences in my opinion.

Teaching Quality

I'm a self--learner. I move quickly and digest information at a rapid pace. I wanted an online course that would allow me to skip through all the bullshit of in-person classes (which typically cater towards the lowest common denominator). Blueprint is fucking ridiculous. You watch one of their videos, 3/4 of the time they're trying to make funny puns or sexual innuendos in an effort to relate with the people. But the thing is, I don't give a shit about relating to anyone. I want to move quickly and learn as much as I can. JY skips the bullshit. He'll move you through a question, and show you through example the type of thinking that is necessary to succeed on the LSAT.

Organizational Format

As several of the people on here mentioned, a lot of time in other courses is set aside towards learning how to differentiate between game types and LR types. But here's the problem in that. The LSAT isn't a test akin to a hotel floor with many doors and keys that will open each one (where the doors are questions and keys the diagrams/rules to solve). Actually, there's an underlying pattern in all logical reasoning and logic games sections. JY teaches you to see those patterns, and to develop a baseline set of skills that will let you lockpick your way out of any situation.

Facebook v. IBM

I see Blueprint as IBM and 7sage as Facebook. On here, there's a huge startup culture. People are using their raw intelligence to hack their way through problems as opposed to learning things the "traditional way." Yes, we learn the same things as they do over at IBM. But we do things our way. Faster, cleaner, smarter. If there's a more elegant solution to a problem, we choose that over the traditional way. That's valuable to me.

Conclusion

So you see, there are tons of differences between 7sage and Blueprint. I felt like I really LEARNED a lot with 7sage. I can't say the same about Blueprint or Powerscore (which I took last year).

^ Bro Name of the Wind is lit

@: The soviets have been crushed! They're in some swapped building or other heh

@: Cheers brother. I'd never considered law school / the LSAT how you just described, but you're right... today's administration was my engagement to the law. I proposed in a room full of watercolors and oil paintings hahaha. I'm finding it super fucking hard to focus on me, but I view today's LSAT as an ultimate test of my willpower and self-confidence in the face of adversity. You all helped me see it that way, and I can't thank you enough. I think it's oddly poetic that this all went down the day before I took a great leap forward in my life, and I'm trying - albeit poorly - to do all the things you've suggested :)

@ : Thanks for your kind words :) I hope you did well too, if you took it today (oh jeez another conditional sorry folks hahah) I'm continually amazed at this Forum and all of the people here. It's an other-worldly feeling being connected to people all over the world who've gone through what you're going through, both in a personal sense and in an LSAT sense. It's so fucking dope

@ Get Right: Thank you man! The test today was a crazy experience. I didn't get to bed last night until around 2/3 am and so was pretty tired when I got there... not how I wanted to be going into this but c'est la vie. After chatting/making jokes with some of the other people in line, I felt really positive going into the test. Thoughts of she evaporated to the back of my mind, though they made attempts to intrude my thoughts at several points throughout the exam. When this happened, I heard J.Y.'s voice telling me, "Breath, calm down, re-focus." And that's exactly what I did.

I think I did really well on reading comp. I was a philosophy major in college, and opening the booklet to see Rawls staring me in the face was like greeting an old friend. Logical reasoning I always find myself flustered by, and found myself anxiously re-reading sentences over and over again while subliminally thinking about my heartbreak. I found the first LR section to be challenging both by virtue of the questions themselves and my subjective mindset. I was really stoked about the Games section, and found myself flying through it. The last LR section I think I did well on too, knock on wood!

Overall, I feel happy, confidant, and satisfied with how I performed on the test. Test day adrenaline saved me from my lack of sleep, though the latter may have contributed to some hastily written, in-correct LR answers, and I found the hours simply flew by.

Once again, I want to thank you and everyone on this Forum for providing me with emotional support when I needed it the most. Today was rough. It was a battle. It was challenging. But we all made it through to the other side, and I want to say from the bottom of my heart that I couldn't have done it without y'all.

Wishing for great scores all around!

"Great moments are born out of great opportunity. That's what you have here tonight boys. That's what you've earned here tonight."

"If we played them ten times they might win nine. But not this (logic) game. Not tonight.

Tonight we diagram with them.

Tonight we answer them, and we shut them down because we can.

You were born to be lawyers, each and every one of ya.

And you were meant to be here, tonight.

This is your time.

Their time, is done. It's over.

I'm sick and tired of hearing how hard a logic game is!

SCREW EM!

This is your time --

Now go out there and take it."

Wow guys and gals, thank you so much for all of this. I can't respond to it all as in-depth as I would like, given the fact that it's 12:48 AM here on the east coast, but thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All of your words have come to me at a time when I thought that the world was enjoying throwing thing my way. Heartbreak, adversity, all these things...

All these are things that I realize I must overcome to achieve my dreams. It was hard for me to put things into perspective, but every single one of y'all's kind words have done just that. Life moves on as they say :)

I'll be sure to give an update tomorrow after the test, and am excited to hear how you all did :) A special shout out to @ and @ for offering to reach out. I appreciate it more than words can say.

Now let's go out and take this thing ;)

Friend A

Friend B - stayed for a week, Gender: Male

This is a simple In Out Grouping Game.

In Group: Two slots

Out group: undefined slots

Rule: If you're (1) an uninvited guest or (2) a male, you're out

The In Group has been filled already by pieces X (you), Y (your roommate), thus pushing all the other pieces incl. uninvited guests and males out

Ez Pz

Realistically, yeah you can't determine when or when she can't have male suitors at her house

I'll hop on the Suits train here, but I've also found The Good Wife to be absolutely amazing. I've been binge watching it - sort of - in between studying these last few weeks

"Pour up, drank, head shot, drank

Sit down, drank, stand up, drank

Pass out, drank, wake up, drank

Faded, drank, faded, drank"

In actuality, six logic games sections from PTs 70-74, two logic reasoning sections, watching The Good Wife, and chilling

Okay, figured it out. This is a principle question, but flowing in the reverse.