@SazB42 This question is asking us to find which claim simply MUST be false, meaning, which claim explicitly contradicts the stimulus. The stimulus says that Samantha likes both oolong and green tea, but none of her friends like both; it also says that all of her friends like black tea. So, the answer choice we're looking for must be explicitly in contradiction with these claims!

All of the incorrect answers in this question seem to simply be not possible to prove or disprove from the information we have. For example, answer C. says that all of Samantha's friends like the same tea as one another, but we don't know if this is true or untrue because the stimulus doesn't explicitly tell us either way. We see the same issue with A., for instance; we don't have any proof that Samantha does or does not like black tea, so we can't say that answer A. must be false. The answer we're looking for is one that we can undeniably point to and say, "hey, wait, that's completely untrue!"

By this criteria, the right answer then has to be E., because the information in E. is in direct contradiction with the stimulus. E. says that one of Samantha's friends likes the same kinds of tea that Samantha likes, but wait, our stimulus says that none of her friends like the same kinds of teas as her! This answer is directly contradicting our stimulus. And since we're looking for an answer that holds a contradiction - a must be false answer option - answer E. is our pick.

Hopefully this makes sense and isn't condescending or anything of the sort!! You got this, best of luck in your studies! :)

@KhushyMandania Correct! We're always looking for answer options that address something both interlocutors mentioned, so you're right on the money!

@ashlynangell Also, for what it's worth, on this specific exercise, we were told to take our time to fully comprehend every question and every answer! This was an exercise in comprehension, answer elimination, and answer selection confidence.

To answer your question, though, Mister gave a really good suggestion: drill! And while drilling, search for patterns. Over time, you'll be able to identify main conclusions much more quickly. LSAT questions are formulaic, so focus on identifying these formulas and understanding how to derive the correct answer from them. Drilling gives you firsthand experience in this!

Best of luck in your studies, you got this!

Jesse, we have to get 180s on the LSAT!

Fat Cat isn't a socialist? I think we have to put him onto Marx and Mao!

Poseidon auramogged the dolphins

@LamontNarcisse Luka 60 ball last night!!

@CarlosHernandez03 I'm not entirely certain that that is correct, as our goal in this negation is to deny the conditional relationship; that is, we're trying to say, "We can be A without being B." I believe your statement is saying, "You don't have to be A in order to be B."

The statement, "It is not necessary to be a Jedi to use the force," does not deny the conditional relationship as it is saying, "It is not necessary to be a Jedi to use the force, but you can still be a Jedi and use the force." Therefore, it is not outright denying this conditional relationship, as we're aiming for in negation.

The phrase, "It's not the case that to be a Jedi, one must be able to use the Force," does deny this conditional relationship because it's outright shutting down the idea that there's any causation between Jediship and Force use. "It is not necessary to be a Jedi to use the force," is instead drawing a line in the sand amongst Force users while not denying this causation. Negation is aiming to deny this causation; it's aiming to deny this conditional relationship.

I hope this makes even a lick of sense; logic is incredibly hard to express in English, and I sincerely hope this doesn't come across condescending or overly-corrective in any way! Please give any feedback or thoughts you have!! Have a wonderful day and good luck on your studies!!

To negate "All dogs are friendly," we'd be focusing on the word "all" and disproving that specific word by saying, "It is not true that all dogs are friendly." This negated statement logically states that, at the very least, there exists at least one dog that is not friendly; hence, the existence of at least one unfriendly dog means that it's impossible for every single dog in existence to be friendly.

Going back a few lessons, we also know that "some" entails a numerical baseline of at least one. Therefore, this negated statement could also be written as, "Some dogs are not friendly." That's why the negation of "All dogs are friendly," is "Some dogs are not friendly!"

Good luck in your studies! Trust your gut and intuition, and reward yourself for every little bit of progress you make!!

#feedback

This lesson is excellent. To have our studies applied directly to an LSAT-style question in a lower-pressure environment like this is INCREDIBLE for us as students. My confidence is very solid because of this.

We'd appreciate more low-pressure fake questions just like this throughout our lessons as practice for practical application of our lessons!

You're doing incredible, and you have made SO much progress! You have all of us on 7sage behind you, so keep it up and believe in yourself as much as we believe in you!

this is very silly but i hope it gives a struggling LSAT student a smile to know that the video is 17:38 in length. Fetty Wap is on our side in our studies!!

@CLacey I know you asked this a few weeks ago and by know you likely are able to answer it by now, but I would say so! When we watch the video reviews after our quizzes on here, our instructor notes that he'll sometimes intentionally not begin analysis before he reads more of a question; he'll get the context first. The sentences we study (To be a jedi, you must so-and-so; all cats are mammals and trained by French opera singers, etc.) are all meant to fit into larger contexts, it seems, so I would say you're right on the money by ensuring you read a question fully before segmenting into rule vs. domain.

Good luck on your studies, you got this!!

@NoraElkhyati Something that helps me is grouping the concepts into the subset and superset (sufficient and necessary, respectively). For instance, for question 2, I identified trees as a subset to the supersets perennial plants and plants with stems; trees fit these two criterion, but there are other perennial plants and plants with elongated stems that are not trees, thus making trees the subset (sufficient) and per./e-stem the superset (necessary). This would therefore translate to, with the use of de Morgan's for the contrapositive:

T -> per. and e-stem; contrapositive of /per. or /e-stem -> /T.

If you approach the sentence, "All cats are mammals and are adorable," you could identify that mammals and adorable are two supersets; there are other things that fit into these categories other than cats. However, cats also fit into these two as a subset. Therefore, cat must be the sufficient condition and mammals and adorable must be the necessary conditions. This comes out to:

C -> M and A; contrapositive of /M or /A -> /C.

I hope this makes sense and is of any assistance to you guys! Best of luck on the LSAT, you got this!!

it looks like I didn't study enough Mandarin or Calc for the LSAT!

@adzballroom Number 5 states that the ume (which I assume is some sort of tree or plant, though I'm not certain!) blooms from December to January. Apparently, the emperor likes trees/plants that bloom for three or more months at a time. Since the ume blooms for only December and January - two months - that means it blooms for less than the emperor prefers, and therefore, the ume is not a tree/plant the emperor likes. In the exact language of the question, we'd say, "The ume is not amenable to the tastes of the emperor."

Does this make any more sense? Did this clear anything up? Let me know!!

Good luck on your studies, GOAT!

@ThatsAmoree I would imagine not; while we're able to intuitively derive that an argument is incorrect without having to translate it into these Lawgic arguments, I believe the point of these exercises is to give us tools to break down arguments for when our intuition inevitably fails. While we can solve algebraic equations just by eyeballing them (2x = 12 is x = 6, which we could figure out without pen and paper), on a long-winded test that's meant to mentally exhaust us and drain our energy halfway through, our intuition might not be so sharp. So, Lawgic is meant to be both an alternate way to understand arguments as well as a fallback when our intuition is exhausted. While some are super geniuses whose intuition never fails, even super geniuses have safety nets!!

TLDR, no; these formulas are there to help us when our intuition fails!

Wishing you the best on your studies! Crush this test!!

Love to see mentions of our wonderful Lisan al-Gaib!

@CarlosHernandez03 they know their audience!!

@adzballroom I believe the translation rule applies to the steps we learned for turning our sentences/conditional logic statements into letter notations, which was introduced here!

For instance, "If one is a Jedi, one uses the Force. Snorlax is a Jedi, and therefore, Snorlax uses the Force." We'd translate this into the Lawgic code by turning Jedi into "J," Force into "F," and Snorlax into a subscript S that precedes either of these letters. All we're trying to do is take out the essence of a sentence and turn an entire conditional argument into a near-oversimplification of letters for the sake of compartmentalizing it in our brains.

The Translation Rule could apply to this statement for it to read,

J -> F

S^J

---

S^F

Expanded,

Jedis use the Force (J -> F)

Snorlax is a Jedi (S^J)

Therefore, (---)

Snorlax uses the Force (S^F)

I hope this was helpful and didn't re-explain anything in a condescending way!! Best of luck on your studies, you got this!

Clearly, I did not study enough Mandarin for the LSAT

@HealthLaw@28 I do believe so, yes! It seems as if formal arguments say that a member of a smaller group (subset) are always a member of a larger group (superset). Then, it plugs in an example into this smaller group to create sufficiency for membership into this larger group.

For example, "I have a cat. All cats are cute. Therefore, my cat is cute." In this example, cats (the member in question) are a subset of things that can fit into the "cute" superset label; many more things can be cute, and cats are just one of them. Saying, "I have a dog. All dogs are cute. Therefore, my dog is cute," would provide an example of another statement that expands the umbrella of "cute" things. In both examples, membership in the subset - dogs/cats - is sufficient for membership in a larger, more-encompassing superset of cute things.

I hope this explanation was English and helped, even if only a little and even if a month late!

@BrittanyJohnson Good luck, my friend, you got this!! you have the full force of all 7sage users supporting you 🙂‍↕️

@jhlaier Russell's paradox was the first concept I thought of when hearing the word "set." It's so interesting to see overlap from previous studies with LSAT studies, and it makes the LSAT feel all the more human and real; it isn't some abstract, intangible logicfest but rather a test of real life application!

Also, after just having read Katabasis by R.F. Kuang and seeing Russell's paradox represented there, as well, it's nice to see it represented again!

@JKang I've found that laughing at others' comments has only helped me remember lessons better! Everyone has a right to study, comment, and interact on a platform they've paid for in the way that best suits their own personality, within reason. life is short, and we should enjoy laughing around a little bit, when appropriate! best of luck on your studies!