Hey everyone...

I'm only about a quarter of the way through the curriculum, so perhaps this is discussed later in the courses, but after being confused with how group 3 and 4 interact, I sought out explanations as to how to combine rules and ultimately settled on just following the rules as JY presented them...

However, that led me to thinking of examples where this might not hold true, and I came up with the following example which combines group 1 and group 3, based on the example from the cheatsheet:

All horses are strong, unless they have been drugged.

Obviously, grammatically this isn't a complicated sentence, so I suspect it is something we would see fairly frequently on the LSAT. That being said, I'm curious how we tranlslate a more complicated sentence like above? What I came up with was:

All: group 1, sufficient

All horses: H

are strong: S

H-->S

/S-->H

unless: group 3, negate sufficient

unless they have been drugged: D

At this point, it seems like if we treat the first statement, "All horses are strong" as X, and "unless then have been drugged" as Y, then we should have /Y-->X

Therefore, is the following correct?

/D-->H-->S

/S-->/H-->D

If it is not a horse that is strong, then it has been drugged.

Please #help?

Curious what y'all think of the following - below was my translation of a Powerscore logical reasoning quiz, and then what they had listed...

The strike will end only if management concedes a pay raise.

Only if, necessary

The strike will end: /S

Management concedes a pay raise: McPR

/S-->McPR

/McPR-->S

If management does not concede a payraise, then the strike will continue.

Powerscore says:

SE = strike will end; MCPR management concedes a pay raise

SE-->MCPR

(if the strike ends, then management conceded a pay raise)

/MCPR-->/SE

(If management does not conced a pay raise, then the strike will end.

I guess what I'm wondering is how many of you would consider SE to be strike will end vs hstrike will end being equated to /S