Hi, coming here from the two comments in the explanations (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-23/).

I would really like to get a clear understanding of why choice A is wrong.

The issues raised by JY and others in the comments with choice A also appear to be applicable to choice D (which is correct).

A is wrong because it could be that her daughter is just very wise at birth. Isn't this the same as saying a tree could just start off with a lot of rings? Those both don't seem to interfere with the relationship set out in each: thing gets older, thing gets wiser/gets more rings.

I believe the issue for me boils down to understanding exactly why the relationship in choice A is not a general/universal claim.

As one gets older one gets wiser [than one's earlier self] <-- the correct interpretation

As one gets older one gets wiser [than someone who is younger] <-- wrong interpretation

The older a tree, the more rings it has [as opposed to it's earlier tree-self] <-- the wrong interpretation

The older a tree, the more rings it has [as opposed to any younger tree] <-- the correct interpretation

In the existential quantifiers lessons, JY explains how to negate statements with the universal quantifier "all." The conclusion was that "some are not" was the negation and that the new set contained 0-99 items, whereas the original "all" represented 100 items.

In the comments section there was some confusion about why the "some are not" statement included 0 items in the new set and some contributors suggested the statement encompassed only 1-100 items.

After diagramming the all statement and its negation, I think I see where some (myself included) may have become confused. The important distinction is that the new set of 0 to 99 items is comprised of items with the same property mentioned in the all statement. My reasoning is below and I welcome any input on its accuracy. Thanks!

Example: All cats (C) are pretentious (P)

For simplicity, let us assume that there are only four cats in the world. The total number of cats which are pretentious and not pretentious must add up to 4.

P | /P

4 | 0 <-- every cat is P; the all statement we negate

---- <-- the binary cut

3 | 1 <-- min. condition to contradict our all statement

2 | 2

1 | 3

0 | 4 <-- often thought of as negation of all; "No cats are P"

In the above table we see that in the 5 possible groupings based on our 4 cats, one represents the all statement and the other 4 cases together represent the negation of that all statement. The set which represents 0 through 3 inclusive (comparable to 0 - 99) is the set of pretentious cats. I believe this is where many became confused and thought the set of 0-99 was made up of unpretentious (that is /P) cats. However, above we see that our unpretentious set always contains at least 1 cat and therefore follows our definition of some (it is comprised of one, possibly all cats, but not 0).

Hi all,

Link to the lesson: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/traffic-accident-principle-question?ss_completed_lesson=1135

First of all, C can be eliminated because of sequence: car stolen a week before the suggested actions were published. But I had a different view, below.

I'm looking to get some clarification about why exactly answer choice C is wrong and I think it has to do with translating the scope of "voluntarily" as an adverb as being more important than the positively stated "undertake" versus "not undertake."

Any help appreciated!

Regarding answer choice C, it states that Collen voluntarily did NOT take some action (which one could argue I guess is a form of voluntary action itself), whereas the principle states that the actions are undertaken (affirmatively). The video explanation does just this, stating that Collen's failure to do something was a voluntary action, but this kind of reasoning makes the distinction between undertaking and not undertaking meaningless, if we talk about not undertaking an action in that context, that just ends equating with, oh, you made a choice NOT to do something, so you chose to do something.

Is it possible to rule out C since it is talking about an action that she did NOT undertake when the principle is talking about actions that the person DOES undertake? To me this looks like a failure of the sufficient condition, which means the rule is irrelevant.

I guess we could see the principle as having an AND statement in the sufficient condition:

undertook action AND knew consequences AND did so voluntarily, therefore responsible.

C looks like we fail the first segment of the AND, while satisfying the last two, so the conclusion doesn't follow.

Also, another way to get at this confusion might be looking at producing a contra positive of the principle because it is difficult to determine how to properly negate the original premise.

Contra positive: A person is not responsible for the consequences because NOT(know that actions they voluntarily undertake risk such consequences)

A person is not responsible for the consequences because they did not know the consequences OR did not do so voluntarily Or did NOT undertake an action.

Answer choice D seems to be getting at the idea that not doing an action is part of the negation. Colleen did not undertake the slamming of the door. We know D is wrong because it is trying to conclude she IS responsible for an action she did NOT undertake. In parallel to C, Collen voluntarily did NOT undertake the precautions, here Collen voluntarily(?) did NOT undertake the slamming of the door, just her here brother did it, whereas in answer choice C, no one did it.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-09/

If this question were a Must Be True type and an answer choice said “Most people think the government policy is not one of appeasement,” would that be something that must be true?

My understanding of the stimulus is that there is some room for the people to disagree with the “assessment” but not necessarily disagree with the conclusion of the political commentators. Furthermore, the author’s conclusion that “this view” is mistaken, seems to suggest that the view of the political commentators is not proper. Assessment and view seem to encompass the idea of reasoning as well as just simply truth value, i.e. a conclusion. All of this is to say that the disagreement might well be over reasoning to reach the conclusion by the political commentators, rather than their conclusion itself.

Reading the stimulus in this way doesn’t prevent the flaw from being described as it is in this flaw question, because it is wrong to use what most people think as a premise in this circumstance.

Just wondering if reading the “this view,” “mistaken,” and “assessment” as leaving room for the issue to be one of reasoning rather than outcome is correct.

Hi all

I searched the forum and turned up some posts about new problem sets from about a year ago, so my apologies if this question is answered elsewhere.

First, I was wondering if there was a way/would it be beneficial to know the supposed difficulty of problem sets before we take them. I understand that the difficulty increases from the first to last problem set of a section, but is it possible, for example, to know that problem set #3 out of 10 is on average a "medium" difficulty? I would like to be know that without having to open up the answer key. Or perhaps there is a reason we only see the relative difficulty after taking the set?

Second, how is the difficulty ranking in the question bank determined? I remember seeing something about it being the results from 7Sage members. How is that data gathered and is it a good indication of general difficulty?

Thanks!

Got this one right by POE but had a tough time being OK with A. It is definitely something I considered as a flaw in the reasoning. However, the use of "the identity of the practical joker" in the stimulus (which we accept as true and cannot contradict) means we have to accept that there was one single person who was the joker. A tells us there was more than one joker. How does A not contradict the stimulus?

Am I missing some way of reading "the identity of the practical joker" to mean that there could be more than one person?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-14/

Link here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/how-to-quickly-react-to-logic-games-question-stems-flashcards

Do the flashcards for reacting to LG question stems and identifying properties of incorrect choices apply to LR question stems as well?

Thanks!

Hi all,

I studied abroad via a popular US program run out of Butler University in the United States (IFSA-Butler) [http://www.ifsa-butler.org/for-alumni/transcript-information.html]. I though that, since Butler University is a US institution and was issuing a US transcript, LSAC would accept these credits as part of my undergraduate record.

Has anyone had success with IFSA-Butler specifically, or with other study abroad programs in general?

Many thanks!

Hi all,

In the last two weeks I have been unable to get audio on any of the 7Sage video explanations. I have been using Chrome from my work computer (Windows 7) and my laptop (Macbook Air). Any thoughts?

I'm curious if anyone has a good way to handle group 3 indicators "unless" or "until." In English these are often used to heavily imply an EXCLUSIVE or relationship, but in logic they only give us an inclusive or.

Example: I will go golfing (G) unless it rains (R).

Applying our group 3 translation rules strictly, we arrive at: "/R --> G" and the contrapositive "/G-->R"

Translating the above statements back into English,

"If it is not raining, I will go golfing," and "If I am not golfing then it is raining."

That is fine. The trouble comes when you try to reason from the fact that it is raining. In our common understanding of the above original statement if we knew it was raining, then we would be inclined to say the person is not golfing. However, that is not correct based on our translations.

More frustrating is the idea that this person could be golfing in the rain as nothing prevents R AND G from being together. That is the essence of inclusive or and is the possibility that is implicitly ruled out in our natural reading of the statement. Obviously, we can't apply a conversational implicature on the LSAT and we have to obey a strict logical understanding. I can easily imagine a question giving us the original statement and then supplying an answer choice that says "It is raining, therefore you are not golfing."

I would be grateful if anyone has a way to explain the possibility of the inclusive or outcome in the original statement by giving an example in which this person could be golfing in the rain and such outcome is acceptable.

Logically I understand the possibility, but making it more intuitive by having an example in mind would greatly help.

--

It's interesting to note that the implicature of exclusive or seems to be most strong in statements of "until" involving time and "unless" involving things such as the weather. The possibility of an inclusive outcome is easier to understand on a different example.

I will be angry (A) with you unless you clean your room (CR).

/A --> CR "If I am not angry with you, then you cleaned your room"

/CR-->A "If you did not clean your room, then I am angry"

I believe we all still see the possibility that I could be angry with you and you cleaned your room. Maybe you didn't do your homework, etc. That makes it fairly obvious that we can't conclude the condition of your room from my anger. I'm wondering what that "other 'cause'" might be for the golfing example.

Thanks!

Looking to confirm my thinking on the below. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/or-but-not-both/

From this lesson:

Alan or Chris go to the park. (/A-->C)

And

Alan and Chris cannot both go to the park. (A-->/C)

I'm interested in diagramming these statements in relation to the third idea in the sentence, in this case "go to the park," as (P).

With "A or C go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

A-->P

C-->P

With "A and C cannot both go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

P --> /A or /C which can be diagrammed as P-->(A-->/C)

Now to link up the two statements:

A-->P-->(A-->/C)

I'm getting "If Alan goes to the park, then Chris does not go to the park."

Alternatively:

C-->P-->(C-->/A)

I'm getting "If Chris goes to the park, then Alan does not go to to the park."

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-16/

I agree A is a better choice given the premises and conclusion, but am I crazy for thinking that an economic incentive implies that the benefit is at least equal to, possibly greater than, the cost? In the examples given by JY he states we have a "growing economic incentive" when earth housing costs go from $200 million to $400 million while moon colony costs are st $1 billion. I understand that the gap between such costs has narrowed, but can it really be said that an economic incentive even exists at this point? Until I can at least break even, why would I consider anything less an "economic incentive." Since, in this view, JY's example does not actually present an economic incentive, can it really be said to be growing?

The only way I can see out of this issue is that the stimulus tells us point blank that the increasing scarcity of housing on earth results in a growing economic incentive, so perhaps my understanding is in conflict with the stimulus.

In looking through the combination of conditional logic lessons on 7Sage and in The LSAT Trainer, I think I may have hit on a much more simple way to translate sentences that contain both a group 3 and group 4 indicator.

The 7Sage group 3 indicators require negating an idea and making it sufficient. However, these indicators actually identify the necessary condition in the statement.

The group 4 indicators require negating an idea and making it necessary. However, these indicators identify the sufficient condition.

As a result, the suggested translation rule in lawgic that we pick one indicator to set the rule and then treat the other as a negation is actually somewhat of an extra step.

For example: No A, unless B. Typically we would choose "No" as the rule to apply (negate necessary) and then treat "unless" as a negation. So we would get A and /B and would instinctively apply the group 4 rule to the already negated element because that is easier to write out, thus giving us A-->B.

Likewise, choosing to apply the group 3 indicator rule (negate sufficient) and treat the other indicator as negation we get: /A and B and instinctively would apply the negate sufficient condition to the already negated element because that is easier to write out, thus given us A-->B.

We can reach the same result by just ignoring the indicator rules and instead understanding them as identifying either the sufficient or necessary condition, as applicable. In other words, when translating a statement with both group 3 and group 4 indicators treat the group 3 indicator as group 2 and the group 4 indicator as group 1.

Examples:

No dog (D) is without an owner (O).

D --> O

---

None of the participants were certified in special education (C) except for the director (D). (treating except as group 3 here)

C --> D

---

You should never go outside (G) unless you bring your umbrella (U).

G- -> U

----

Until the fire department gives the all clear (C), we cannot return to our offices (R).

R-->C

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/introducing-new-drugs-strengthen-question

Looking to get a better idea of the logic on answer choice E, which is an incorrect answer choice.

I understand that A is the correct choice because reasoning from an example which is already the best case compared to alternatives strengthens the argument, given the premises.

Comment from @DumbHollywoodActor was helpful in shedding some light on E's logic:

(E) mixes up the logic. If you take the contrapositive, you can see it more clearly: “if most new drugs shouldn’t be on the market, then the new antihistamine shouldn’t be on the market.” The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

However, I would like to understand this statement better: The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

We must accept the premises and the conclusion as true for LSAT questions. I get that if we accept the premise as true, that is affirming the necessary condition of the logic in choice E. But, if we accept the conclusion as true, that also satisfies the sufficient condition of the logic.

Put simply, after reading the argument I am left with these two true pieces of information:

P: antihistamine should not be on the market (A)

C: these new drugs should not be on the market (B)

then E gives me this logic of "these new drugs should not be on the market" --> "antihistamine should not be on the market"

So, I'm left looking at that B--> A statement, and holding A and B in my hands, with no understanding of where to plug them in. If I plug B in, then I get A, but apparently that is not the correct answer.

Is it because the reasoning in this argument is inductive (that is, moving from a specific example to a general rule) and so it isn't helpful to say that "this general rule is the case" therefore "this specific examples is the case," since the argument is not applying a rule, but rather trying to support one?

Really struggling with this question: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/literature-departments-responsibility-na-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1785

I did eliminate A, B, C and D for reasons given by JY, but I cannot bring myself to see that E is a necessary assumption.

Wigmore doesn't give us any opinion on advertisements being "true literary works." He does not concede the point. He merely says, whatever, I don't know about ads.

Please share your thoughts.

In E we get that the literature department’s responsibility is not limited to teaching students how to analyze true literary works.

The negation test gets us to "lit dept. IS limited to teaching analysis of true literary works."

Why does Wigmore's argument suffer from that negation? He left open the possibility that, hey, maybe these ads ARE true literary works.

I get that in the case of ads NOT being true literary works, this is a necessary assumption because the dept. would need to teach things other than true literary works to include ads. But this does not have to be the case as we have no definite decision on whether ads are true literary works or not.

It seems that because Wigmore leaves open the possibility of ads being true lit works or not being true lit works that in the case of ads being true lit works then E has no impact and in the case of ads not being true lit works E is necessary.

---

EDIT: Ok, starting to click perhaps. If Wigmore argues from a position of expressing no opinion about ads' position as literary works, he had better leave open the possibility that his conclusion can be drawn from either situation. In that case, when Ads are not true literary works, he had better think that the department can still teach them. Such an assumption operating on the case when ads are true lit works doesn't do squat for the argument, but that is exactly how necessary assumptions work; the don't really help, but they can damage. Here we had to check for two possibilities because the choice specifically mentioned a variable element in the stimulus.

See here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-embezzler-weaken-question

The Embezzler (weaken EXCEPT question)

This question gave a lot of people trouble, particularly regarding why answer choice (C) weakened the argument. After reflection, I believe I may have unpacked the reason why this is a clear cut wrong answer choice. However, I am wondering how C does not straight up contradict the conclusion of the argument, which we are not supposed to do in weaken questions. I am grateful for any input or feedback on this attempt. Let's begin!

minor premise: embezzler had special knowledge and access

sub-conclusion/major premise 1: embezzler is an accountant or actuary

major premise 2: an accountant would probably not make the mistake which revealed the embezzlement

main conclusion: it is likely that the embezzler is an actuary

Answer choice (C) states that there are 8 accountants and 2 actuaries

This is where things got dicey. Many people felt that the premise that "an accountant would probably not make the mistake" affected the probability that answer choice (C) was hinting at. However,there seem to be two major assumptions made to jump from the premise that "an accountant probably would not make the mistake" to the conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." First, the assumption that, because an accountant probably would not make the mistake, that therefore an actuary probably would make the mistake. Second, and this is a huge unstated assumption, the person who made the mistake is the person who committed the crime.

For example, even if we accept that an actuary has a greater likelihood of making the mistake that led to the discovery of the crime, is it not possible that an actuary could make the mistake but not have committed the crime? Therefore, the likelihood of committing the mistake and the likelihood of committing the crime are separate and distinct from each other. Conflating the two is a major assumption of the argument and a major reason for confusion on answer choice (C).

If we separate the assumption that the person who committed the mistake is the person that committed the crime from the conclusion that an actuary likely committed the crime we can use simple probability in looking at answer choice (C). Granted, this requires us to assume that of all accountant and actuary employees at XYZ Corporation, each person had an equal chance of either committing or not committing the crime. However, this lets us avoid introducing confusion of who was more likely to have committed the crime versus who was more likely to have made the mistake that led to the discover of the crime. Then the answer choice weakens the argument by stating that we would have to concede it seems there is greater probability that an accountant was the person who committed the crime.

That solves it for me.

However, I would really appreciate insight on how this answer choice does not both (1) directly contradict the conclusion and (2) avoids the assumptions that provide the support from premise to conclusion.

Regarding (1), C in English becomes It is likely that an accountant is the embezzler; this is in direct contradiction to the stated conclusion in the stimulus that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." Maybe it depends on the definition of "likely?" In other sources, I see it means, possible to be true, but I also see at as being used as probable (that is, in probability we could not say that it is probable if there was actually only a 20% chance, as is the case of actuaries being the culprit in answer choice (C)).

We accept the premises and conclusion as true, as we must for weaken questions. Now if I told you that there is an 80% probability of an accountant being the embezzler, how could you seriously hold on to the truth of your conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler?" Unless likely is meant as "could be true?"

Regarding (2), the support provided by the major premise that an accountant would probably not make the mistake ties into the conclusion by (a) assuming the person who commits the mistake also committed the crime and (b) that the actuary is more likely to commit the mistake. Answer choice (C) doesn't go after any of these. It instead focuses on the probability of the person who committed the crime, which seems just attacks the conclusion directly and changes it's outcome.

In other words, looking at the unstated assumption which conflates those who made the mistake with those who committed the crime, the main conclusion really just states a probability that has no relation to the rest of the argument except via extreme assumptions. Then answer choice C directly changes this probability.

After further parsing this, I would actually say the major conclusion does not follow from the premises and that the argument has made the flaw of confusing likelihood of committing the crime with likelihood of making the mistake. The detective spent all his time discussing the likelihood of the mistake but then expressed his conclusion as one of likelihood of committing the crime (which we know nothing about). C introduces information about the likelihood of the occupation for those who could have committed the crime. But this entirely shifts the detective's erroneous conclusion.

Thanks!

Am a big fan of knowing that on RC questions there is always specific, identifiable evidence for why an answer choice is right/wrong. However, I am struggling on this question.

Question: ""The passage suggests that Dworkin would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?"

I chose B:

"Judges should not use their moral intuition when it conflicts with the intentions of those legislators who authored the law being interpreted."

Because of lines 7-11:

"their own moral convictions, even if this means ignoring the letter of the law and the legal precedents for its interpretation. Dworkin regards this as an impermissible form of judicial activism that arrogates to judges powers properly reserved for legislators."

The passage clearly states Dworkin thinks judges should not override legislators by applying their own moral intuition. Why is this not captured in choice B?

I understand that E is something Dworkin would agree with given that legal positivists don't accept moral guides whereas Dworkin suggests they play a role in law.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-questions/