I think the misunderstanding is conflating the application of the rule as "support". For me it's helpful to ask myself "why should I believe this" when determining support for a conclusion.

The first premise: "Classification of a musical instrument depends on the mechanical action through which it produces music. "

Second premise: "the strings of a piano are caused to vibrate by the impact of the hammers."

Now, really looking at just those two statements, does the second premise honestly help us answer the question "why should I believe the first statment?", does it give us an answer as to WHY musical instuments are classified by mechanical action, rather than some other form of classification?

Another thing I think would help with misunderstanding is that when looking at the contrasting "other peoples opinions" (i.e. the people who think the piano is a string instrument) and the Musicologist's opinion (I.e. piano is a percussion instrument), there is no disagreement on whether "mechanical action" is the correct form of classification. They all agree that classification depends on mechanical action but one group thinks that the correct mechanical action is strings vibrating while the other group thinks that the mechnical action is the impact of the hammers. The rule is not up for debate but how you apply the rule is.

hope this helps!

I don't think so. Go back and look at the "galloping apatosaurus" lesson, especially his explanation for C. He talks about how the referential phrasing can be used to hide to ride answer choice but he doesn't say it always does. It seems like sometimes the LSAT writers will also use referential phrasing to try and trick you into getting the answer wrong ( i.e. referring to the premise and not conclusion)

I was a little confused when he mentioned that answer choice E would be "better" if often was replaced with sometimes but then I remembered the lesson on quantifiers and how we can infer a some relationship from a many/most relationship(going down the quantifier scale) but you cannot infer an often relationship from a many relationship because often implies more than some. I'm not sure if JY specifically talked about "often" as a quantifier but in my brain the quantifier scale goes like this: from smallest to largest

none→one→some→few→many→most→overwhelming majority→all

So if an MSS or MBT answer choice includes a quantifier, make sure the quantifier stated in the answer is smaller than the quantifier stated in the stimulus.

I literally just said "whats the point of this" out loud and then checked the comments hoping I wasnt alone lmao

After being a tad nervous I'm one of those "dishonest" people JY talks about, I did my own knowledge check. Please let me know if this looks right to you!

Causation: " Walt smoked for 30 years and contracted lung cancer. Therefore, it's clear that smoking causes lung cancer"

- We observe a two seperate phenomena( walt smoked for 30 years & walt has lung cancer) and make a hypothesis about the events(smoking causes lung cancer).

Correlation: " The more cigarettes one smokes, the higher likelihood of contracting lung cancer"

- Saying that as the number of cigarettes increases, the higher the probability of contracting lung cancer. Were not saying smoking causes lung cancer but, rather observing the two events increasing together over time.

Sufficient and Necessary: " If you smoke, then you will get lung cancer"

- In this parallel universe, smoking will cause lung cancer 100% of the time. Even if you just smoke one time, it is a certainty that you will get lung cancer

So if im understanding correctly, " Causal Mechanisms" are assumptions the argument makes about the details of the cause and effect relationship?

One difference I see between your example and the one given in this lesson is which condition from the all statment is used as the sufficient for the "most" statement.

In your example, the all statment and most statement share the same sufficient condition. Whereas in the lesson's example, the necessary condition from the all statment is used as the sufficient condition in the most statment.

your example:

A→ B & A‑m→C | Were able to draw a conclusion that some B'c are C's because like you said, there has to be at least a 1% overlap between the A's that are B's and the A's that are C's

the lesson's:

A→B & B‑m→C | Not able to draw a valid conclusion because while all A's are B's, we have no idea about the size of the B circle so it is very possible that while 100% of A's are B's, all of those A's could be within the 49% of B's that are not C's

I made my own comment about this so kinda repeating myself here but for me, it's more helpful to remember that sharing the same sufficient condition can lead to inferences between the two necessary conditons.

When I was reading this, I couldnt help but wonder why, in this example, the "all statement" doesnt imply "most", giving us two split most statements until I realized that in order for you to draw a "some" inference from two most statements, the sufficient conditions for each statement must be the same.

Kinda just thinking out loud here but thought I would post to double check my understanding and if right, maybe help someone.

The way I think about it is that a contrapositive is a rule that the relationship has to follow vs a negation is a condition/situation that makes the relationship false.

When we look to obtain the contrapositive, we maintain the conditional relationship and just give ourselves another perspective to look at the relationship from vs when we do the negation, we're trying to poke holes in the argument and find a situation that would make the relationship invalid.

Here you go!

https://7sage.com/lesson/group-3-group-4/

So Negation is the condition that makes the relationship false?

I dont believe so. Like you pointed out with bringing in subet and superset logic, the "all" relationship is similar to a sufficient and necessary relationship (we even use the same diagram in lawgic). Being a member of A is sufficient to know it also has membership with B & being a member of B is necessary to being a member of A. We also know based on the contrapositive that if there is no membership in B it is impossible to be a member of A. But based on the information given, we dont know for certain that all B's are also A's.

I think he does say it is a group 1 translation?

In the first paragraph of his explanation, he follows group 1 translation rule to get

nec-human-health → should-provide-org-ppph

But then JY shows that if we take the sufficient to be true (kick it up/ imagine a domain where the only items we're talking about are ones necessary for human life), we uncover another relationship surrounding what type's of organizations should provide( ppph ones).

You might have just inferred that organizations whose primary purpose is not promoting health should not provide necessary items from the original "if, then" translation which is 100% correct. I think JY just took it a step further to highlight that there is also a relationship within the Necessary condition that you have to be aware of.

not sure if this helps in any way, shape, or form but, thought I'd try!

Finally figured it out, if anyone else is having this issue...

When you have 2 indicators from groups 3&4 in one sentence....

Whichever indicator you use, leave it out of the "idea" and swap the unused indicator for "not"... so if I'm using cannot as my indicator, the lawgic would be:

idea 1:senator delivers speech

idea 2: assassination attempt does not fail

Following the Group 4 translation rule(negate either idea and make it the necessary) the lawgic would be:

SDS→AAF(double negative turned into positive)

*note that if you use "unless" as your indicator from the get go, "cannot" already implies not and doesn't need to be swapped.

JY talked about this briefly in a video I found in V1 but, I don't remember it being mentioned anywhere in V2. Very surprising since this seems like something we'll definitely need to know for test day

#help, For exercise #2, how do you know which indicator to pay attention to? "

"Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails."

Cannot ( Negate necessary indicator) vs Unless (negate sufficient indicator)

My translation to lawgic is coming out different depending on which indicator I use and I'm very confused. When I use "cannot" as my indicator, I get " unless the attempt fails → amildala delivers speech" or " amidala cannot deliver speech → unless assassination does not fail" which doesn't match his explanation. Are we just supposed to give higher priority to unless as a conditional indicator?

Any help/pointers would be appreciated!!

good point! Appreciate your interpretation :)

No, youre right to think that but, it also depends on which idea you choose to negate as the sufficient condition. One case would be like you said where getting cavaties is a necessary condition of not brushing your teeth. The other would be, Brushing your teeth is a necessary condition to not get cavaties. Like JY said, both of these cases are twins and both are accurate ways to describe the relationship.

#Help

I'm trying to connect the dots with the previous lessons on "or/either" but I'm unsure if this is the correct way to think about it, can someone let me know if the below is a correct understanding?

Ex: "Unless corn is harvested in September or October, it will spoil"

Translation:

/Corn is (not )harvested in September and Corn is (not) harvested in October → it will spoil

If it does not spoil→ Corn was harvested in September or October or both.

My confusuion stems from the orginal example in 5.5 "Corn is harvested in September or October." On this question, the two "ideas" are Corn harvested in September and Corn harvested in October". In the answer for this question, the two groups become Corn being harvested in Sept. and Corn being harvested in October but, I'm not sure how to apply this to the example I gave? It feels like the example I gave is more likely to show up on the test since it's more complicated but I'm having a hard time knowing how the concept applies to more complex situations.

The contrapositives dont apply for 7.1 to 7.5 because the statement is expressing a possible causal relationship between the two things using conditional language. Rather than the conditional language being used to express just a Conditional Relationship(Sufficient and Necessary), the conditional language functions to introduce a timeline that X & Y are both on, indicating cause and effect.

To differentiate "If, then" as a conditional indicator from "if, then" as a cause and effect we have to focus on the relationship the question is describing for 7.1-7.5. While conditional language is used, it is saying that if X happens then Y will happen AFTER X( If X increases, then it can cause a change in Y). Sufficient and Necessary conditions dont care if X happens before or after Y, the relationship still holds.

We cant take the contrapositive of a cause and effect relationship because cause and effect relationships dont imply certainty. Cause and effect is not saying that the cause will always lead to the efffect, merely the cause CAN directly lead to the effect . The only way we'd be able to take a contrapositive of a cause and effect relationship is if we knew that X will always cause Y.

An easier example of this would be: "If I dont study for the LSAT, then I wont do well on the test" Is it a guarentee that I wont do well on the LSAT? No. is it likely to happen? Oh most definitely. However, its still possible that if I dont study for the LSAT, I can still do well on the test(lol not the best example but you get the point).

I think for 8.1-8.4, they're trying to say that if you come across a "conditional indicator" on the test but, you're able to understand the "relationship" the question is expressing in a way thats quicker than translating to lawgic (I.e. comparative statements- identify both groups, what they're being compared on, and which is the winner) then you should feel free to use the quicker method of understanding on the test.

we know because of the conditional statement used "To qualify as a suspect class(X) for purposes of equal protection analysis, plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait(Y)." (In order to be a member of X, you must do Y) (Suff→Necc)

another way of thinking of this is... we dont know anything about what it would mean to define an "immutable characteristic"(we dont know the requirements for membership) we only use immutable characteristic(IC) membership in order to define membership in SC. thinking back to our circle diagrams, we can translate this to a subset and superset. the subset is the more restricted of the two(has a smaller population/more conditions on membership) and is found entirely within the superset (all members of the subset are also members of the superset). when thinking about the two populations, Membership in SC & Membership in IC, membership in SC has more limitations on it (must also be a member of IC) and therefore, we know that all SC's must also be members of IC and is the subset or sufficient condition.

Like JY said, on the actual LSAT we might not have time to visualize the circle diagrams everytime but, doing so during practice will help you get to a place where you can eventually see it in your head!

This is how I understood it,

If an item(x) is a milk, it is guarenteed to be in a store( membership in milk is sufficient for membership in store).

If an item is a milk, it is sufficient to say the item is in the store.

If an item is not found within a store, it is impossible for the item to be milk (without membership in the necessary condition, membership in the sufficient condition is impossible)

If an item is found in a store, it is not sufficient to be a milk.( membership in the necessary condition(store) is not sufficient for membership in the sufficient condition(milk)).

In order for an item to be a milk, it is necessary for it to be in a store.( membership in the necessary condition(store) is necessary for membership in the sufficient condition(milk).

It is not necessary to be a milk in order to be in a store ( membership in the sufficient condition is not necessary for membership in necessary condition)

I think your gut feeling about bringing in the outside information is correct. This question exists in a vacuum/ in it's own universe. The stimuli states that "Those who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app. All other members must..." If they dont do the first option, they MUST do the second one. Must indicates a necessity. Based on this wording, it is a fact that there is only 2 ways to get the Geanie + pass(any other way is not an option in this universe). If instead, it said "all other members should prostrate..." then that would be a case where we could theorize a 3rd way (i.e. stealing, buying it from a person 2nd hand) because should does not envoke a necessary condition.

In the real world, people can definitely try and find a workaround to be able to get the pass but, as far as the question goes/ the made up universe they created,we only know of 2 ways to get the pass due to the necessary condition.

I think you bring up a good question but it's important to remember that the stimuli never introduced "employee's or friends/families". In the universe of this question, we have to assume that there is no "discounted 3rd way" like there may be in real life because we have no information in the stimuli to support that. If lets say, instead of "all other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar", it said "Almost all other members must..." then we would have reason to assume there might be a 3rd way.

We can only poke holes in assumptions the argument actually made and only have as much information as the stimuli tells us.

Comparing this to the Tiger Arguement, the argument assumed that tigers are mammals. It never said "tigers are mammals", but it was implied through the argument. This is a situation where we can bring in outside information/ think about whether the assumption made is generally accepted as true based on our outside knowledge. Whereas with the Disney argument, there are no assumptions. It explicitly states what is the case and how each premise is connected to one another so, we cannot bring in outside information and must rely ONLY on what is stated in the stimuli.

I think "personal knowledge" is the wrong way to think about it. When we evaluate the tiger argument, we are bringing in "commonly accepted as true beliefs" about a general population( tiger). A person with a college education would know that tigers are mammals and we are able to bring in that knowlege because the stimulus heavily implied it is true. We made a judgement on the assumtion the stimuli introduced. But with the trash bin argument, it is localized to the specific attributes of a single cat and making assumptions about the cat's personality. The stimuli is still introducing an assumption but, we cant make a judgement on it becasue a random person would have no idea about the attributes of this particular cat.

All that to say, I think the line to bring in Ouside knowledge is defined by a couple things:

1. does the stimulus introduce an assumption that is relevant to the outside information? (we dont want to introduce information that is not mentioned in the stimulus)

2. Would an average person know the outside information?

I'm not sure if I answered your question completely but, I hope this helps!