My tip would be to try not to get stuck in lessons. I also took a long time to go through foundations mainly because I would pause the video, go back, and when finished watching the video I would read the whole summary, even when I had already understood the concept from the videos (I guess I wanted to make sure everything was as clear as possible), and lastly I would proceed to read the comments. If you're doing any of these things then of course you will spend much longer in lessons than their respective estimations. So ask yourself: are you getting stuck in the lessons for any of those reasons? If the answer is yes then my suggestion would be to just move on quickly after you finish each lesson, even if you felt lost in a particular one. Watch the video/ read the lesson (for the ones with no video) and move unto the next one. If you understood the lesson, perfect, move on. No need to read the summary or go to the comments. Assuming you understood the lesson in its entirety from the video, then you'll only be wasting time by doing those things. However, in the case that you didn't understand the concept or you were confused by it, move on anyways. You can always mark those with a star and then come back to revise them later. In summary: don't get stuck in lessons.

Most classically trained opera singers can recite the lyrics to Musetta's Waltz and most people who have not received such training cannot. It seems likely, therefore, that Anna, who can recite the lyrics to Musetta's Waltz, was classically trained.

CTOS = classically trained opera singers

RLMW = can recite the lyrics to Musseta's Waltz

/CTOS = Most people who have not received such training ("such training" is a referential for "classically trained opera singers")

/RLMW = cannot (another referential. This time it refers to "recite the lyrics to Musseta's Waltz", negating it.)

A= Anna

So the Lawgic translation is:

CTOS ‑m→ RLMW

/CTOS ‑m→ /RLMW

A RLMW

---------------------

A CTOS

This is invalid because it's reading the ‑m→ arrow backwards as RLMW ‑m→ CTOS when it is the other way around.

For the conclusion to be valid it would've had to read "It seems likely, therefore, that Anna, who was classically trained, can recite the lyrics to Musetta's Waltz."

Not quite. Only is a Group 2 conditional indicator which indicates the necessary condition. So when they say "Only birds migrate south in winter" what they are really saying is that if you migrate south in winter then you are a bird.

On the other hand, if they say "All birds migrate south in winter" what they are saying here is that if you are a bird then you migrate south in winter. This is because All is a group 1 conditional indicator which indicates the sufficient condition.

It really is tricky because at first glance they look the same but in reality they are completely different arguments. In one argument "Birds" is the sufficient condition and in the other it is the necessary one.

All birds migrate south in winter. Group 1 sufficiency

B → MS

Only birds migrate south in winter. Group 2 necessity

MS → B

That's why conditional indicators are important.

That's right. If you are in Gryffindor (G) then you are brave (B).

Contrapositive: If you are not brave (/B) then you are not in Gryffindor (/G).

It is not saying that just because you are brave that you are in Gryffindor, but if you are in Gryffindor then you are definitely brave.

So, for example, if I say "Some B are A. All B are C. Therefore, some A are C."

Is that valid?

Lawgic:

B ←s→ A

B → C

--------------

A ←s→ C

Basically,

B ←s→ A gets rotated to A ←s→ B which then gets chained to B → C

Which leads to the conclusion A ←s→ C

Rotated: A ←s→ B → C

---------------

A ←s→ C

I understand the concept, I just want to know if the English translation "Some B are A. All B are C. Therefore, some A are C." is valid.

Yup. The only difference is that in the first example you're using the group 4 indicator "no", and in the second example you're using the group 1 indicator "if", but they're both saying the same thing. I would just add "it is" on the second example right after "if" so as to say "if it is a grad level.... then...." otherwise is kind of awkward lol

Question for #5:

I drew the conclusion "kittens ‑m→ /homes with children"

However I made the mistake of also drawing the conclusion "kittens ←s→ home with children"

I did this because I interpreted the quantifier as "few" and I understood that "few" means "some but not many" which when translated turns into both "some are" and "most are not".

But I didn't take into consideration that it was saying "fewer than half" instead of "few".

So therefore, I'm I to understand that "few" and "fewer than half" are not the same thing?

With "few" being both "A ←s→ B" and "A ‑m→ /B"

and

"fewer than half" being exclusive to "A ‑m→ /B"?

I'll appreciate if someone can clarify that. Thanks.

I get where you're coming from but there is also a difference between thinking your score is a failure and thinking that you could've done better. I don't think anyone who scores a 169 would feel like a failure but I could see why they would be tempted to retake it with the aim of scoring a 170 or more.

Also, to add to that, I pretty much used the same method with all the others except for question 4 which did not contain the indicator word "unless". For that one I did use domain method but not on the others.

So it is my understanding then that there is no one way to do this just as long as we reach the same conclusion. For example in number 5 I didn't use the domain method and instead I did the following:

Rule: knowledge of existence and aware of high probability → knowledge is established

exception: believes that it does not exist

Lawgic: /believes that it does not exist → (knowledge of existence and aware of high probability → knowledge is established)

Is this acceptable?

We negate it because remember that the name, and therefore the rule, of group 3 indicators is "negate, sufficient" so when you encounter a group 3 indicator you negate either of the ideas/ clauses and make it the sufficient condition.

So, "either A or B" translates to:

1) /A → B

or

2) /B → A

Hope that helps!

Look at it this way:

"John is A. Therefore John is B."

Does that make sense?

If you said no then you're right, it doesn't. At no point did I say that being A equals being B, I simply said that John is A.

So what's the missing rule? Well, the missing rule is that A equals B.

Now we can apply the missing rule and it would look like this:

"If A then B. John is A. Therefore John is B."

And now the argument is valid.

Hope that helps.

This is actually a great method for assigning symbols when translating. When I translate into Lawgic one of my biggest obstacles is figuring out which symbols to assign to which. But with this method is actually made easier because I just assign the symbols based on the subject of the sentence and the object.

Like in the example: The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace.

The kernel of the sentence is simply "Kingdoms support policies". Everything else is just modifiers.

So when looking at it like this I just assign the symbols as "K" for kingdoms and "P" for policies.

So the translation to Lawgic looks like this: K → P

You're right and I also did the same thing, but I think the point is that on the LSAT you're only going to choose one option, not two, and so they may present both as possible choices and while it is true that both are technically correct, the lsat might consider the "wasabi" choice as the sole correct one simply because it uses all of the premises. But you are right about the instructions indicating to draw all of them. Had the instructions said to draw "the conclusion" instead of "all the conclusions" it would've made more sense. I guess you want to look at it as both being valid conclusions, however "Hermes watches the Olympics" would be a sub-conclusion whereas "Hermes likes to eat wasabi" would be the main conclusion. I'm not entirely sure if that's right but that's how I made sense of it.

Well that was a spike in difficulty lol

No because there might be a safety concern and the cruise ship might simply ignore it or miss it. So just because there is safety concern that does not guarantee an unscheduled stop. However, if the cruise ship does make an unscheduled stop then is definitely because there was a safety concern, and we know that because the claim tells us that they make such stops "only when" there is a safety concern.

A good tip is to try not to get too hung up on the content of the claims and trying to make sense of them using real world logic. Simply look at the form and understand that when you see phrases such as "only if" that is indicating the necessary condition.

yes

So after seeing more lessons and reading other comments it seems things are not exactly as I had thought. Apparently the sufficient condition and necessary conditions are indeed swapped with "not B" now being the sufficient condition. It looks like when using "the arrow" the form is always "sufficiency -> necessity" no matter what. However, I searched online and I also saw that when doing a contrapositive "not B" becomes "negated necessary condition". So take it with a grain of salt.

That's a bit confusing though because if I use the logic of the argument "if not B then not A" the argument is telling me that you need B to happen in order for A to happen, which essentially means that B is necessary for A. No B equals no A. Is that not so?

Yes it remains the same in terms of Force being the necessary condition. If I say "If not B then not A" then by default that means that B is the necessary condition because, as the claims says, not B equals not A, meaning you NEED B for A to happen. It doesn't matter if its A, B, C, D, E or whatever, if you say "if not THIS then not THAT" "THIS" will always be the necessary condition for "THAT".

Interesting. I think I got it now. So I am imagining a world where if I got to the store then I absolutely have to buy milk, regardless of what else I get or don't get, milk is a requirement, otherwise I cannot step foot inside the store, which would then mean that no milk equals no store. You're right. I was trying my best to not use real world logic in the exercise but what kept tricking me was the fact that the milk is inside the store, however that doesn't matter because buying milk in that world can simply be a requirement to enter the store, sort of like when going to a bar, if I sit at the bar then I must order a drink" so even if the drink is inside the bar, if you don't order it you can't sit in. So I imagined a world where buying milk is required to enter the store, which would then make milk necessary. Thanks Kevin, I get it now. Thanks for providing such an in-depth clarification.

"However, in order to buy milk, you MUST go to the store"

Right. So doesn't that mean that the necessity is the store? Not the milk?

You NEED the store, so by default the store should be the necessity.

On the other hand, buying milk is a sufficient reason to be in the store. Sufficient, but not a necessity.

Hi Kevin, I still need some clarifications regarding this.

So, to better understand I took this example and compared it to the New York/ USA example.

If I go to New York then I'll be in the USA

New York -> USA

sufficiency -> Necessity

If I go to the store then I will buy milk

store -> milk

sufficiency -> necessity

So I get the sufficiency part but what I'm still not understanding is the necessity aspect.

We know that being in the USA is necessary to being in New York, after all New York is inside of the USA. But with the milk example this is tricky because it is the milk that's inside of the store, not the other way around.

You NEED to go to the USA in order to visit New York.

But you do NOT NEED to buy milk in order to visit the store, actually is the other way around, you NEED to be in the store to buy milk.

I get that you mentioned that we are not supposed to look at it from the real world view, but even if its guaranteed that you will get milk by going to the store, I am still failing to see how it is a necessity to buy milk in order to be in the store.

I'll appreciate if you could clarify that. Thanks.

I did the exact same thing lol

I also struggled with this one for the same reason. Based on the video explanation what I gathered was that we need to ignore the subject and predicate and focus mainly on the object. Breaking it down it would look like this:

No statistical evidence (subject)

is provided to show (predicate/verb)

that humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly. (object)

By ignoring the subject and predicate you end up with the claim:

-Humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly.-

Now with the claim looking like this it becomes very straightforward.

1-humans act selfishly vs humans act unselfishly

2-which one happens more often

3-humans act selfishly

That's the only way I could make sense of it.