I've really been diving deep in foundations to refine my understanding of conditionals. So, I tried to create one. Please comment where I made errors.
If you are a boxer, you will have good cardiovascular health. To have good cardiovascular health you must be diligent to your training. You cannot be diligent in your training unless you practice good technique.
CHAINED CONDITIONAL:
B->GCH->DIT->PGT
Please correct where incorrect.
Cannot tell if I am practicing the approach correctly. However, I feel like I am on the right track with the outcome of this scenario.
The arguments of those who have studied late 20th century analytic philosophy are far less likely to be riddled with presumptions subconsciously formed through the uncritical acceptance of language’s various, heavy, and misleading baggage than are those who have not.
TBC: those who studied 20th century analytical philosophy v. those who have not
QOC: the arguments and their level of presumptions and baggage
W: 20th century philosophy studiers
I feel like this prompt leaves room for inference in a big way. I went with instruments of the future.
Detecting planets outside our solar system requires more sophisticated instruments than are currently available.
TBC: instruments of the future v. instruments that are currently available now
QOC: ability to detect planets outside our solar system
W: sophisticated instruments of the future.
Please inlcude thoughts on this.
Good news: I diagrammed everything perfectly.
Bad news: I confused Necessary for Sufficient and chose E instead of A.
I am noticing that I am breaking down these sentences into smaller components (simpler). I am getting the correct outcome but my TBC (things being compared) and QOC (quality of comparison) are not always aligned with the answer's breakdown.
I find it helps to actually write out the structure of the sentence the way the video breaks it down rather than applying the exact nomenclature to the sentence components (noun, verb, object, etc.).
A fourteen year study of finches on the Galapagos islands concluded that there is a definite relationship between X and Y.
Kernel: A study concluded the relationship between X and Y.
Breakdown: A study concluded
{14-yr study} {relationship between X & Y}
{of finches} {definite}
{Galapagos islands}
I found the kernel of question 4 to be:
Kernel: Atmospheric winds trigger the formation of hurricanes.
The formation of hurricanes cannot exist without the high atmospheric winds.
I know I am most likely digging into the weeds of grammar on this, but this seems more congruent with the flow of subject, predicate, object.
"Triggered" indicates an action [predicate-verb] made by the high [modifier] atmospheric winds on the formation [modifier] of hurricanes [the object]. What hurricanes? the hurricanes that threaten the US mainland.
*Anyone
reply with feedback, please.
Q3, Q5, and Q6 were straight forward. Q1, Q2, and Q4 were wild.
I'm interested. We could probably facilitate this on zoom. We'd be limited to 1 hrs sessions but it's better than nothing. Count me in.
When I started this journey 8 months ago, I diagnostic tested at 139 overall. I spent 3 months fumbling with a shitty program of study using a completely different program and was getting nowhere. Fast forward to today (5 months post-7sage) and I PT'd a 149. 10 point increase is great, but man do I have so much more work to do. This is not a boast. I am genuinely concerned that while I am gaining fundamental skill in taking this test...I am not going to be able to achieve my desired score of 165 by the November test. Advice please.
5 is wild.
thats for the 180 gang.
I notice that when I am identifying things being compared and quality of comparison, I am switching the two. I had a favorable outcome for these scenarios, but I am applying the tools incorrectly.
This is my breakdown for scenario 3 and 5
Things being compared: population eastern lake game ducks v. western lake game ducks
Quality of comparison: the percentage of adult males
Winner: Western lake game ducks
Scientists have found that giant pandas are more similar genetically to bears than to raccoons.
Things being compared: genetics of giant panda's and its similarities
Quality of comparison: bears v racoons
Winner: bears
HELLLPPP!!!! :)
Excellent breakdown. Feynman is a treasure.
I am an extremely visual/spatial person. Applying this skillset to the test was an oversight on my part.
Perfect execution of describing something in detail and condensing it into the review text.
Ohio-based but taking LSAT in April as well for fall registration 2025.
Excellent breakdown using mapping skills for Conditional Logic.
Application of these techniques seems helpful but deciphering where to apply them based on the format of the premise is difficult at this stage.
Well said.