why did he make it so complex for no reason

thank you for this!

Hello :) I believe you might be mistaken. In both of those cases, the necessary condition of the "all" matches the left side of the "some" statement.

For All+Some relationships, a valid conclusion can be drawn as long as the sufficient condition of the “all” matches either one of the “some,” and you can draw a valid “some” conclusion.

No. As long as the sufficient condition of the “all” matches either one of the “some,” you can draw a valid “some” conclusion.

In both of those cases, the necessary condition matches the left side of the same statement.

Had it been:

A → B

A←s→ C

_

B ←s→ C (VALID)

Helloo :)

As long as the sufficient condtion of the "all" matches either one of the "some" you can draw a valid "some" conclusion.

A → B ←s→ C

_

A ←s→ C (invalid)

Let's write this out bellow:

A → B

B←s→ C

_

A ←s→ C (invalid)

Because the necessary condition matches.

Had it been:

A → B

A←s→ C

_

B ←s→ C (VALID)

This is how I think about it:

◦ Sufficinet condition of the "all" must be the shared term with one of the most.

◦ If the sufficient condition of "all" matches the left side of the "most", then

the relationship turns into a "some" in the conclusion.

◦ If the sufficient condition of "all" matches the right side of the "most", the

the relationship turns into a "most."

This is the example above.

A → B —m→ C

Let's take it apart

A → B

B—m→ C

As you can see, the necessary condition of the "all" matches the right side of the "most" so we can't draw a valid conclusion. We can only draw valid conclusions if the sufficient condition of the "all" is the shared item.

Your example is valid and you are correct.

A -> B

A -m-> C

_

B -s- C

Here we have the sufficient condition of the "all" matching the left side of the "most" so we can draw a valid "some" conclusion.

me too!

It's a good tool for understanding the concept in the beginning, but you can train yourself to do these in your head as you become more comfortable with the material :)

Yeah, "v = or," and "^ = and," but it probably requires more effort to remember those symbols and distinguish between them. Diagramming is only a tool to help us understand the validity of the argument, so it's unnecessary to add more complexity since the LSAT is already complex enough :)

But if you are already comfortable with them, you can definitely use them.

I personally always confuse the two so I prefer writing the words out.

Replace the “unless/ without/ until/ except” with “if not”

ORIGINAL

Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates.

Replace

Blackouts will occur “if not” the heat wave abates.

Readjust the grammar

Blackouts will occur if the heat wave doesn’t abate.

Now, this form is similar to Group 1

/HWA → BO

Contrapositive:

/BO → HWA

Replace the "unless/ without/ until/ except" with "if not"

ORIGINAL

Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates.

Replace

Blackouts will occur "if not" the heat wave abates.

Readjust the grammar

Blackouts will occur if the heat wave doesn't abate.

Now, this form is similar to Group 1

/HWA → BO

Contrapositive:

/BO → HWA

#help #help #HELP

The international lsat times are much more limited than in the US and Canada.

It's only June, October, January, April, and June.

I plan to take it in October, but what if I don't get my desired score?

Is January too late to take it again for the fall 25 cycle?

I know of many people who consistently scored in the high 170s on their PTs but got something in the 160s on the actual test and had to retake it.

I'm stressing a lot because everyone says the spots will fill quickly, and I will have lower chances. What should I do? Please help; I would greatly appreciate it!!

So we know all adorable things are cute, but we don't know if all cute things are adorable (I know it's confusing, lol).

If we know he's adorable, then he must also be cute.

But knowing that he's cute is not enough for us to conclude that he's also adorable.

Logically speaking, only the contrapositive is valid, and the inverse and converse are invalid.

So, for example, let's say we're given that all A's are B's, so:

A → B

From this, the only other thing we can conclude is the contrapositive, which is:

Not B → Not A

It would be logically invalid to say that

B → A or Not A → Not B

These are just the rules of logic that you have to remember. They make your argument logically invalid.

I know these from math, but he does get to them later in the lessons, so don't worry. I'm sure he'll explain it so much more coherently :D

In the original, we have the following support:

"All adorable things are cute."

If adorable, then cute

Adorable → Cute

Your support says: Adorable → Cute

But your conclusion says since he is cute, then he must be adorable;

Cute → Adorable

Do you see how the sufficient and necessary conditions are switched? That's the converse, and it can't happen because it makes an argument invalid (flawed).

So, if all adorable things are cute, we can't conclude that all things cute are adorable.

The inverse is also invalid. Only the contrapositive is valid.