@ said:
I found this logic very confusing at first. I think the best way of understanding it is with an in out game. Lets give it a try.
We have two options to pick from (A and B ). We are able to choose one of each item to be picked, however we like, as long as we follow one rule. If an item is not picked, that item is out.
Rule: A-->/B
/A means A is out, A means A is picked. Alternatively, B means it is picked and /B means B is out.
If the condition is A-->/B (If A is picked, then B is out), we must think back to the CC about when rules trigger and when they fade away. If I tell you A is in, then the sufficient is satisfied and therefore, /B. Or, in other words, B must be out. Now if I tell you /A (A is out), the sufficient condition is negated and the rule falls away. So now that /A is out, with no rule to say what happens next, B could be picked (B) or /A and /B could be out together. This is why this rule is called 'not both'--both A and B cannot be picked simultaneously. Why exactly? Because when A is picked, we know B is out. When B is picked, (contrapositive B-->/A) A must be out. But when we are told one or the other is out, we simply don't have a rule about what must happen next. They turn into a floater!!
Simply change up the conditions and use the same logic. Please let me know if you need further explanation. This concept is absolutely key to becoming fluid with logic. Try and really image why. I am glad you made a post to learn more about how these abstract rules work rather then just memorizing what the terminology is.
You have no idea how much of a breakthrough you provided with your considerate and thorough reply. I took notes on what you laid out for me, and yes, it gave me a deeper understanding. I now know better than to commit to rote memorization. I am still a bit shaky on logic, but I feel like I understand the dynamics now. Thank you so much!
Hey, guys. I have some conflicting notes on something and was hoping for some clarification.
/A --> B
and
A ---> /B
are different things, right?
I wrote down:
/A-->B
=Either or; one of A and B must be in, the other is free to float.
A-->/B
=Not both; only one of A and B can be in, the other must be out.
This is what I wrote down from the course but I thought I saw something different in one of the explanations.
Thank you for all your input. I've read over all comments and they have given me a huge insight into my problem.
As Jenny said, I was extremely focused on the solving the problems when I should have been focused on diagramming the game! Naturally, few things clicked and I would forget all about the logical inferences. I also feel that I rushed through too many games, not spending enough time going over and re-doing the games that gave me trouble.
I have gone over 30-70PTs and do not intend to go into 1-29 until I have REALLY understood the problems I have already solved. I guess I was trying to rush into things and simply do as many games as possible when I should have invested enough time into each and every one of them.
Can't say enough thanks, guys.
Have a nice day and hope your journey goes well.
hjy9253
Hello, everyone.
I've done the core curriculum and am (trying) to solve all the LG problems from PT 1-70 but things are not looking up.
I've done 40 PTs so far. This is what usually happens. First, I will try to solve the problems on my own. I will probably get the sequencing and simple in-out games and make all the inferences. On a good PT, three sets with maybe 4-5 wrong. On a particularly bad one I might get two or even one set properly done, missing up to two digits. The latter has been happening a lot and on the September LSAT, I did not fare well on this section and had to randomly guess for about twelve of the questions.
I understand JY's explanations and they have been very helpful. But are you supposedly to go over EVERY single game set with explanations? For me, that seems to be the reality. And even with 40 PTs down, I am not making the leap I had been hoping for.
The Games are holding me back and I have not done anything else for some time. It's making me really depressed, guys. I hope to hear some words of wisdom. Thanks and have a nice one.
My problem with MSS seems to be that I usually can't anticipate an answer choice in advance. Only about one out of five or six times does my my "anticipated" answer choice actually appear. And half the time, it turns out to be a trap anyway.
Unlike Main Conclusion, where I can usually predict the answer, I end up going through every single answer choice and crossing out the wrong ones until one seems viable. Needless to say, it is time-consuming and not very helpful.
I was wondering if anyone had a step-by-step process to anticipate the correct answer.
Thanks in advance.
@ said:
What was helpful to me is watching JY's lessons on this like 3 times particularly this one until it clicked - https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/not-both-v-or-truth-tables-longer-explanation/
Thank you for the link. I combed through the CC but did not recognize it before. I will be sure to freshen up on my logic. Have a nice day.