Discussions

tonitrankaroff1205

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

tonitrankaroff1205

Wednesday, Jan 31 2024

#help why is "only if" (in the uni-conditional section) an operator that indicates Yoda training him is a necessary condition? Do the words following "only if" mean it's a necessary condition?

LSAT · Please explain sufficiency vs necessity :(

tonitrankaroff1205

Thursday, Mar 27

@ Just got to some today... not loving this section AT ALL lol

LSAT · Please explain sufficiency vs necessity :(

tonitrankaroff1205

Monday, Mar 24

Omg, the example with the cats (in different classes) just FINALLY clicked for me!!!! I actually want to cry, I feel like my brain just unlocked a new power or something bc you literally broke down every single ELEMENT that I have been confused on for WEEKS. I want to give you a hug rn. (3(/p)

Denying the necessary Lets Us Conclude Things

Affirming the sufficient Lets Us Conclude Things I've literally been searching for an explanation like this wow.

So in the biology example, (copying it here so I can see it while typing lol):

**4: thorny seedpods -> curled leaves

This is where you went wrong - you did an "All Mammals are Cats" here. We have affirmed the necessary - we know that our specimen has curled leaves. However, this relationship is only saying that curled leaves are necessary for something to have thorny seedpods. Thorny seed pods, on the other hand, are merely SUFFICIENT for having curled leaves.

There may be other ways to get curled leaves, just like the statement

cats -> mammals

leaves room for other ways to be a mammal other than being a cat (which we happen to also know is true from our general knowledge.) In short - affirming the necessary doesn't let us conclude anything.**

So just because the necessary condition of curled leaves is affirmed, it means nothing for a conclusion because it did not give us "plant x has thorny seedpods" ? For example, if it had said that plant x had thorny seedpods (but did not say anything about curled leaves) then we could conclude it had curled leaves right? Because we are affirming the sufficient? (This is just me thinking out loud so i can make sure my reasoning is correct now)

I cannot thank you enough for this, you made me finally understand this and I am so so so so grateful for your extensive explanation and taking the time out of your day to do that :) I'm still mindblown rn at how that finally clicked for me... god i feel dumb lol

LSAT · Please explain sufficiency vs necessity :(

tonitrankaroff1205

Monday, Mar 24

@ Thank you so SO SO MUCH! You are so so sweet for explaining this so simply for me, I really appreciate you :)

Ok so we cannot conclude anything from the necessary condition, but we can use a sufficient condition (if we are given that) and see what necessary condition it leads to?

For the biology example: (because we are given 2 things: long stem and curled leaves), the rule is that if you have fuzzy seeds, you will always have a long stem (which means nothing for the conclusion because it does not say we have fuzzy seeds so long stem could come from something else) and if you have curled leaves, then you must also have white flowers and since we have curled leaves, we know for sure we have white flowers. (Is this reasoning all correct so far?)

So since we cannot conclude anything else based off the information provided, we then use the contrapositive of what we DO know: if you have fuzzy seeds -> /white flowers.

So basically, we can only conclude something if we are GIVEN information that satisfies the sufficient condition which then GUARANTEES the necessary condition? Because for the first example I included, just because AAF happened, it doesn't mean anything unless the sufficient condition (SAS) happened? The sufficient condition HAS to happen for the necessary condition to happen, correct? And that's when we can validly conclude something?

Thank you SO SO much again, I've written down your examples and they have helped so much :) you're the best!!!

LSAT

•

Monday, Mar 24

tonitrankaroff1205

Please explain sufficiency vs necessity :(

An example in this post is from a live class so it MAY BE A SPOILER****

Hi! I am continuously running into issues with conclusions regarding sufficiency and necessity. I completely understand the structure of Lawgic, and I can chain conditionals with no issues using Lawgic, my issue is when sufficiency and necessity lead to a conclusion, and I cannot conclude the argument is valid or draw a conclusion. I can write it out correctly, I just don't understand what it really means..

Example:

Exercise 2: Evaluating Argument Validity

Is the following argument valid?

The vote to grant Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers will not pass if Senator Amidala delivers her speech. Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails. Her assassins planted a bomb on her starship but unbeknownst to them, she was not on the ship when the explosive detonated. Therefore, the vote to grant the Chancellor emergency powers will not pass.

The argument is not valid because of the Lawgic: (I have the structure down)

SAS → /P

SAS → AAF

AAF

Where I am getting confused is the explanation that is provided: "Satisfying a necessary condition yields no valid conclusions." So when can we yield a valid conclusion?? What condition should I be looking at to conclude whether an argument is valid or not?

Another example:

Biologist: We know the following things about plant X. Specimens with fuzzy seeds always have long stems but never have white flowers. Specimens with curled leaves always have white flowers, and specimens with thorny seedpods always have curled leaves. A specimen of plant X in my garden has a long stem and curled leaves.

Q: From the biologist's statements, which one of the following can be properly inferred about the specimen of plant X in the biologist's garden?

I have all of the Lawgic correctly written down:

fuzzy seeds-> long stems

fuzzy seeds -> /white flowers

curled -> white flowers

thorny seedpods -> curled leaves

x has a long stem and curled leaves

The answer: it has white flowers but lacks fuzzy seeds.

HOW??

I understand it has white flowers, but how is it not "It has white flowers and thorny seedpods."

Is it because if there are curled leaves, then there are white flowers (curled leaves -> white flowers), the fact that having curled leaves is in the sufficient means that white flowers has to follow?

And thorny-> curled means nothing because curled is not in the sufficient?

If something is satisfied in the necessary, you can't conclude anything from that?

I have literally spent HOURS trying to understand this (and understanding other examples further down LR). I don't want to move past chaining conditionals until I can completely understand this, so I'm stuck in my studying. I'm actually struggling so hard. Also is it clear what I'm getting confused on... ?? I can re-edit if this is too all over the place sorry :(

Lessons · Skill Builder - Group 4 Translations

tonitrankaroff1205

Thursday, Mar 20

#feedback I think this is a dumb question but I have the symbols completely down and all of my loose translations logically follow the structure, but I'm struggling with the specifics after translation.

For example, Q1: Lazy cats never develop heart disease.

disease-> /lazy cats

lazy cats -> /disease

When translating to if-then format, is it "if a cat develops heart disease, then it is not a lazy cat," or is it just purely saying, "If something develops heart disease, then it is not a lazy cat?" Are these statements generalizing to ALL things or strictly speaking about the domain of cats (if that makes sense..)

Study Groups · LSAT Extreme Studying GC

tonitrankaroff1205

Sunday, Jun 08

I'm interested!