Subscription pricing
Hey guys so like many of you guys I'm not so happy about my test score (just when I thought reading comp and I were getting along). It was my first time writing the test and the experience was great because it really isn't as monstrous of a day as we make it out to be. However - I did score way below my avg test score. I was studying using PowerScore material, I had taken the course in the summer of 2015 - although I did look or practice the material until this summer when I started studying.
I have not purchased anything from 7Sage. I used my PS course books and homework sections, following a course schedule. It was fairly expensive to take the course and I'm not a big fan of throwing money at the LSAT regime. But - I am not impressed with my score at all, so I'm wondering whether you guys think it might be worth it to get some 7Sage stuff or whether I should hit the PS books again - I'll begin studying tomorrow till Dec 2 on for retest. Would really appreciate some wholesome advice.
@gparmar92213 said:
K(----)M is a biconditional. It is read both ways and we can also read the contrapositives. This is designed to cover every possible world in the in and out game. So unpacking the biconditional reading the arrow forward we have:
K(-(strong)-->M
If K is in then M is out
Contrapositive of that statement is
If M is in then K is out
Now we read the statement backwards:
K(----(/strong)>M
If M is out then K is in
Contrapositive of that is:
If K is out then M is in
The purpose of mastery over this concept for in and out games is that we have every single base covered via a sufficient condition:
What happens when M is in?
What happens when M is out?
What happens when K is in?
What happens when K is out?
By "what happens" I mean what is triggered/what is necessary
This works out so neatly for in and out games because we only have (for the most part) two categories.
The Not both rule you have written above as number 2 is often far more restrictive in what we can draw from it. I think of this rule as it relates to grouping games: if you have Three groups and K and M cannot be together, but if K is in group 1, the only thing we can draw from that is that M must be in group 2 or 3 (assuming we have to use all the piece.) A way I have of looking at a not both rule for grouping games is I tell myself "If I see a K, I better not see an M in that group" For in and out games, because we are playing such a restrictive in/out game board, this simple not both iteration might cause some confusion, because as you point out: we might fail the sufficient condition and (wrongly) assume that the rule falls apart on an in and out game.
Now, there is a small exception in my estimation on in and out games where the rule you have listed as number 2 might provide us with a greater ability to manipulate the game pieces: that in which we have an in and out game with sub categories. Meaning from a group of 7, we are choosing two groups of 3 with 1 out for instance. In this case, the biconditional does not hold the same way it does for traditional in and out games.
I hope the above helps
David
This. Needs. To. Be. Published. Thank YOU!