Subscription pricing
Is there a clean way to diagram 'nothing' in LR using LAWGIC?
PT Questions
mt1008762
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Is there a difference between A --> (B-->C) vs A --> B or C
If so, what is the contrapositive of the A --> (B-->C)
mt1008762
Saturday, Nov 04 2017
Sure, I see how it could weaken the argument. I must be missing something from the approach I use because I am still confused. Wondering if anyone could see how I am not arriving at the answer from the thought process above? Is it that I am misinterpreting the question? The flaw looks only like a drawn conclusion that came out of nowhere.
One of JY's reading comp explanations really helped me easily mentally compartmentalize 'than' in complex sentences saving me tons of time (eg whatever thing comes before 'than' is the winner). I am not sure if this even makes sense, but wondering if anyone could share a foolproof method for understanding the word 'against' in sentences?
I could not find anything to prove the conclusion > few people understand current events> and did not see the flaw the LSAT makers identified.
Here's is what I did:
Tried to create conditional statements but did not understand how to represent Appreciation of Significance.
TV --> DI and DOC
Newspaper --> DI and DOC
Fully understand current events ---> DI + Appreciation of Significance
Since > few people who seek out news sources other than newspapers and TV> was a premise I took it to be true. The conclusion jumped and inferred > few people ever understand current events>. There was nothing sufficient to prove the conclusion. Wasn't that the flaw?
Tried pushing forward to say that those other people must have been the few, but it still got me nowhere.
What all did I miss? Thanks!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-19/
mt1008762
Friday, Nov 03 2017
Btw, your ability to process and tackle the question is amazing.
mt1008762
Friday, Nov 03 2017
Thanks! It can take a long time to identify the perfect example to a question, and it is one of the reasons why I hesitate putting out examples to questions. I don't want the example to divert attention away from answering the original question but for it to bring some clarity to an area of confusion.
I understand how it may be proven through conditional reasoning. But are there other methods to determine the validity of this type of question where the conditional reasoning may not be reliable (or even obscured) or may not even exists, especially during the time constraints of the test?
mt1008762
Friday, Nov 03 2017
Thank you! Unfortunately, I am still confused if folks see this!
Long question! Thought it would be helpful to keep everything organized in one place to hear the thoughts of folks as the questions below all seem to have a common thread and could help the next person.
Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing so is relevant to our aesthetic experience of them; representation is therefore an aesthetically relevant property. Whether a work of art possesses this property is dependent upon context. Yet there are no clear criteria for determining whether context-dependent properties are present in an object, so there cannot be any clear criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art.
There is no genuinely altruistic behavior. Everyone needs to have sufficient amount of self-esteem, which crucially depends on believing oneself to be useful and needed. Behavior that appears to be altruistic can be understood as being motivated by the desire to reinforce that belief, a clearly self-interested motivation.
As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.
Climate and geology determine where human industry can be established. Drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations, and migrations bring about the intermingling of ideas necessary for rapid advances in civilization.
mt1008762
Thursday, Nov 02 2017
Just found an example that finally captures my problem: No one (Nothing) has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.
Do you start with the verb? Why don't the negatives cancel out for the meaning of the sentence to be "these things are harmful"?
Also, is there a way to get a handle on the word 'against'?
Sorry to throw so many questions your way!
A silver lining! You were a magician in revealing that flaw. I have asked questions before but you are the first to comprehend the question and express how to overcome confusion. When seeing how the valid conclusion is drawn alongside the way the invalid conclusion is drawn, you can spot the subtle error the LSAT writers make.
There are tiny details that could be overlooked in the lessons. When I originally did this problem, where the stimulus states "since few people....newspapers and television" I negated few to most but also negated the "and to or" in newspapers and television. When I made that negation, I could not see how the valid and invalid conclusions were any different. Thank you!
My only tiny concern is capturing the "Appreciation of Significance." The inference you made stating newspapers ---> appreciation of significance is very similar to Answer Choice E in PT 38 Sec 1 Q20. I am not sure if this question is even an embedded conditional, but I think it could be useful to see an embedded conditional example drawn from an actual LSAT problem. TV ---> DI + (Appreciation of Significance --> DOC ). Again, this is not very important because I do not think it impacts the answer choice on this particular question.