Contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original sufficient -> necessary condition but it's flipped and negated.
Example:
If I am awake, I am running. A -> R
If I am not running, then I am not awake. /R-> /A
Logically, those are the same statements. If my necessary condition isn't met then my sufficient condition wasn't met.
Contrapositives are useful in chaining.
Example:
If I am awake, then I am running. A->R
If not awake, then I am sleeping. /A -> S
Therefore _____
As is, those don't chain together easily. But if I make premise 1 a contrapositive then I have
/R -> /A -> S
Therefore /R -> S
Negation is a logical contradiction. It's not the opposite, it's just shoving a 'not' (or removing a not in some cases) in front of the concept you're trying to negate. I find them useful in 'EXCEPT' question stems.
"If the above statements are true, each of the following statements could be true EXCEPT" is a really hard concept to keep in my brain when I'm moving down a list of choices. So I negate the "could be true" and turn "each" to "which".
"If the above statements are true, which of the following statements could be not true (or is not necessarily true)?" is an easier north star for me to navigate towards. It doesn't mean that I'm searching for a statement that's FALSE. I'm just looking for a statement that's not necessarily true.
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
Contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original sufficient -> necessary condition but it's flipped and negated.
Example:
If I am awake, I am running. A -> R
If I am not running, then I am not awake. /R-> /A
Logically, those are the same statements. If my necessary condition isn't met then my sufficient condition wasn't met.
Contrapositives are useful in chaining.
Example:
If I am awake, then I am running. A->R
If not awake, then I am sleeping. /A -> S
Therefore _____
As is, those don't chain together easily. But if I make premise 1 a contrapositive then I have
/R -> /A -> S
Therefore /R -> S
Negation is a logical contradiction. It's not the opposite, it's just shoving a 'not' (or removing a not in some cases) in front of the concept you're trying to negate. I find them useful in 'EXCEPT' question stems.
"If the above statements are true, each of the following statements could be true EXCEPT" is a really hard concept to keep in my brain when I'm moving down a list of choices. So I negate the "could be true" and turn "each" to "which".
"If the above statements are true, which of the following statements could be not true (or is not necessarily true)?" is an easier north star for me to navigate towards. It doesn't mean that I'm searching for a statement that's FALSE. I'm just looking for a statement that's not necessarily true.