@ For reference, here were my translations for the first sentences in the answer choices too. I imagine we will get the same translations there too. Unless proven otherwise, I really think this rule has potential because it saves a lot of headache when dealing with double group 3 and 4 words in the same sentence.
"A doctor cannot prescribe porozine for a patient without first prescribing anthroxine for that patient.
A = A doctor
B = prescribe porozine for a patient
C = first prescribing anthroxine for that patient
Rule: AB --> C
Translation: If (AB) a doctor prescribed porozine for a patient, then (C) they first prescribed anthroxine for that patient.
"An ice sculpture artist cannot reach the yellow level of achievement without first achieving the green level."
A = An ice sculpture artist
B = reach the yellow level of achievement
C = first achieving the green level
Rule: AB --> C
Translation: If (AB) an ice sculpture artist reached the yellow level of achievement, then (C) they first achieved the green level.
"One cannot properly identify a mushroom without first examining its spores."
A = One
B = Properly identify a mushroom
C = Examining its spores
Rule: AB --> C
Translation: If (AB) one properly identifed a mushroom, then (C) they examined its spores.
@ I see why you might say that, but my translation did come out to what you said would be the correct translation.
If we apply my translation rule:
A = an air traveler in Beijing
B = fly to Lhasu
C = first flying to chengdu
"A cannot B without C"
Rule: AB --> C
If (AB) an air traveler in Bejing flies To Lhasu, then (C) first flew to Chengdu.
@ Thanks for replying. No I didn't mean it like that. I should have supplied examples. Here are the type of statements that inspired this post (in the stimulus and answer choices). I'm trying to generalize a way to translate "....cannot...without..." and "...without...cannot..." statements.
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/beijing-lhasa-pm-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1132
"Beijing Lhasa - PM Question"
#1
A cannot B without C.
Translation:
AB --> C
/C --> /AB
#2
A without B cannot C.
Translation:
/AB --> /C
C --> AB
I'm curious about the logic itself because if it's true then it's a great thing for me to memorize so I can quickly translate group3/group 4 indicators when they appear together on the test.
Also if you voted no or yes could you please explain why! Thanks.
I'm looking at the Flaw-Descriptive Weaking questions and Necessary Assumption questions on the CC. Each of them has about 20 example questions and 20 PSETs. Is it recommended to do all of them? If not, how many are recommended?
@ said:
Don't do what I did and get hung up on doing every single problem set the first time around.
I spent far too much time on this to the detriment of other areas of the test.
Thanks for the input!
I feel like I'm getting burned by questions that don't use the exhaustive formal logic to solve them.
For example, PT 126 Section 3 Question 14 uses 'most' in a 'most strongly supported' context -- here, validity of invalid/valid argument forms involving 'most' are basically irrelevant, despite the fact that the curriculum exclusively focuses on 'most' in that context. The correct answer choice makes the stimulus more likely, but it doesn't prove validity.
This is a recurring problem across several PT's. For example, see PT 127, Section 2, Question 24. Just like before, pure formal translation and logic doesn't get you the answer. Additionally, see PT 127 Section 1 Question 25. Again, where simply doing 7sage's formal translations and logic doesn't get you the answer. PT 139 Section 1 Question 22 is another example where simply translating 'most' and looking for a 'lawgic' inference doesn't guarantee success. As an additional example, I would argue that in PT 120 Section 1 Question 24 trying to translate the 'most' 'lawgic' actually gets in your way than if you just focus on the other elements of the stimulus.
The curriculum doesn't even cover that there's sometimes a more easily understand application of the word 'most.' For example, PT 119 Section 3 Question 9 uses the phrase 'the most common response' to indicate 'the #1 response.' PT 138 Section 3 Question 4 also involves this verbiage; 'the most polluted cities' are used to indicate 'the top polluted cities.'
There are also questions that reference the word 'most' but in a very irrelevant kind of way (understanding 'most' has very little to do with the reasoning to get the answer right). For example, see PT 131 Section 3 Question 7. PT B Section 4 Question 18 involves the useage of the word 'most often,' and again, formal 7sage lawgic has no answer for how to deal with the application of 'most' in this kind of question..
There are also answer choices that involve your understanding of the application of 'most' with probabilities (and what they can and can't mean). For example, PT 133 Section 3 Question 21. Another example where you need to be confident in 'most''s limitations and strengths as a strengthener is evaluating answer choice D in PT 19 Section 2 Question 18.
PT 151 Section 2 Question 12 involves a very weak usage of the word 'most' to weaken a question.
TLDR: I feel like I don't have a grasp of the word 'most' when it is not used in a formal lawgic context on the LSAT. I find it hard to push out inferences for these questions, especially because the curriculum doesn't really teach 'most' outside of a 'lawgic' context. I added a TON of examples (from across 12 prep tests!) and there are many many more I didn't include. Any advice? Tips? Recommendations? Thoughts?
I've taken a diagnostic and scored a 146. I was wondering which study plan would be the most effective. Right now I'm on the grammar section. Assuming that I have enough time to do all these options, which study method is better?
I'm interested !!!!! :]
bet! interested!
Picked A initially but then picked E on blind review. big oof.
You can upload them now.
@ I think that's a fine way to approach this specific problem, but as you noted, it can get tricky when dealing with the opposite direction and you might also get a headache trying to obtain the contrapositive and "take up brain space" (I could be wrong about this).
As for the OT part I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to come up with a different symbol, maybe instead of a ">" at the end of your line (-->) you draw a triangle or something instead of the two lines. It wouldn't cost you too much time/ brain space to do so since you would only lift the pen once.