Inf and MBT

Patterns in the stimulus

- Review Formal/Casual logic

- Chain ideas to make inferences

- Kick ideas up into the domain

- Keep track of the sets and be careful about sliding across superset and subset

- New terms / Unfamiliar concept -> translate

- Info. might not be presented in the intuitive order, so piecing it together

- Translating into logical notation is a tool—don't force it if you don't need it

- Understand grammar thoroughly

Patterns in wrong answers

- Sufficient/necessity confusion

- Stating a necessary condition doesn't mean there aren't others.

- Stating a sufficient condition doesn't mean there aren't others

- Keep the distinction clear between the rule itself

- Causal logic baits

- Identifying a causal factor doesn't preclude other causal factors.

- Identifying a causal pathway doesn't preclude other causal pathways.

Patterns in the right answers

- Contrapositive/logically equivalent formulations

- Right answers are often predictable

- Be pragmatic: ideal answers are often not the most ideal

Point At Issue (PAI)

Patterns in wrong answers

- Merely consistent with (they can't agree or disagree)

- At least one has no opinion

- Bait you to make an unwarranted assumption

- Appeal to biases

- Push answers over to agree / disagree side

Patterns in the right answers

- Right answers are not ideal answers! Look for the best answers

- Choose the answer that both speakers agree / disagree with

- Often their agreement / disagreement for a certain answer choice could be weakly implied; however, that can be right as long as they're relatively stronger than others

Information in the stimulus

→ May not be presented in a clear order: piece the information together & translate.

Support

→ To read between the lines.

→ Drawing out inferences using the support; find the hidden claims that receive support from the stimulus (which could be found among answer choices.)

Patterns in wrong answers

! Wrong answers make you rely on deriving support from outside of the stimulus

→ Merely consistent with

Could be true or wrong. We don't know.

→ Unwarranted assumption & appeal to your common sense intuition

Bait you to push over wrong answers to the supported spectrum

→ Appeal to the biases

- Prescriptive, normative, value-laden claims

- Might be biased towards (or against) them / might agree (or disagree) with them

→ Anti-supported & straight-up contradiction

Main Conclusion: foundation of the LR

Not identifying the conclusion of the argument → can't do any kind of analysis of the argument

=> forces you to practice fundamental

Context could be others' hypothesis or not, but regardless, the author provides their hypothesis.

Context → Could be a phenomenon but doesn't have to be

When there's a context, the conclusion tends to be present right after the context.

Arguments → Made by analogy

Made with premises that work or independent premises

Predictive (conclusion is the prediction of the future)

Lay out a general principle / rule + apply that to a specific case to arrive at

a specific conclusion

Patterns in the

Stimulus

→ Tends to contain contextual information

→ Conclusion can be short, containing a referential that points to something in the context

→ Can contain within the

main argument + sub-argument

with its own minor premise supporting its sub-conclusion

then goes on to function as a major premise supporting the main conclusion

Right Answer

→ Fills out the referential phrase (make sure it's done correctly!)

→ Make sure it's correct by double-checking the referential phrase in the stimulus

→ Doesn't have to be an ideal answer—could be more general than the conclusion

> Appeal what lies on a reasonable spectrum

Wrong Answer

→ Stating a context / other people's position

→ An assumption of an argument

→ Sub-conclusion / main premises

→ Leveraging various potential grammar / logical confusion to make the answer stem

sounds like a statement made in the stimulus

Something that helped me understand:

"Some" refers to 1-100. To deny the existence of "some", it has to be something that is not 1-100, which means 0. Therefore, the negation of some is none.

Hope this helps :)

Having an example clarifies the application of logic to LSAT questions. Thank you so much!

#help

Is the range of few 1 ≤ Few < Most?

Thank you!

#help

Can we conclude it to Some < Many < Most?

Thank you!

#feedback

I think there's a typo in #2? others cats > other cats

#help

I don't quite understand why the rephrasing for the if/then statement does not include "must be" but the verbs used in the sentence. When I checked the answers for the previous drill, most of them were conjugated to "must be."

e.g., If a game is fun, then the rules are fair. > If a game is fun, then the rules must be fair.

Is there a reason why? Thank you!

For those ESL folks:

I struggled with understanding the case, so I asked ChatGPT to simplify the case.

Explanation of Legal Context:

In legal terms, a "suspect class" refers to a group of people who, due to certain characteristics (like race or gender), are entitled to special protection under equal rights laws.

Key Points Simplified:

Condition for Suspect Class: For a group to be recognized as a suspect class, plaintiffs (those bringing the legal case) must prove that the defining characteristic of the group cannot be changed and is fundamental to their identity.

Lack of Supporting Evidence: The plaintiffs did not provide any evidence or references to support their argument that being homosexual is an unchangeable trait.

Court Decision: Because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that homosexuality meets the criteria of being immutable (unchangeable), the court decided not to classify them as a suspect class.

Hope this helps! (and hope there's no legal consequences for copying & pasting from ChatGPT!)

This is something that helped me to understand:

For example,

air is necessary for humans to live—without it, a person would die.

However, it is not sufficient because it cannot, by itself maintain human life as there are other factors required for survival, like water and food.

Similarly, if an advertised job requires that the candidate holds a Master's degree,

the qualification is necessary but will not guarantee they get the job, and is, therefore, not sufficient.

On the other hand, jumping from a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute is sufficient for death;

however, there are many other ways one might die and it is, therefore, not necessary.

Likewise, being a mother is sufficient but not necessary for being female in the same way that a room being square is sufficient but not necessary for it having four walls (it could be rectangular).

Source article: https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/v5i2p1/release/1