If anyone wants to plan one or two nights a week for the upcoming tests of June 2025, August 2025, or beyond, I am testing in the 170s and would be willing to have people over to study, eat, and talk. Let me know if anyone is interested, I live in Linda Vista, under USD.
Hi I also live in SD and am pushing for 170+, practice testing anywhere between 178 and 168 right now. but am woefully inept at how these things actually get formed. It seems like people say they are interested and then nothing gets planned. Am I missing something?
Hi everyone, I also live in SD but am woefully inept at how these things actually get formed. It seems like people say they are interested and then nothing gets planned. Am I missing something?
I am having trouble with this because I dont think that lends a full explanation to B and I am asking for someone to explain this to me, because to me B makes it clear the the percentages of actual people helped both cases is unreliable. It is calling into questions the percentages in general, because of the difference in response rates. As such, the author, who is using those percentages as the basis for his conclusion, would have his argument weakened if they were not reliable. I know it says "of those responded," and I think this is the crux, because that means the author is basing his conclusion on the respondents. However, the implication here is that those percentages mean nothing if the response rate was highly variable. Lets say, as JY says, we have 1000 in the 6months (a) or less and 1000000 in the 6 months or more (b) in response rates. This means, of course, the real numbers favor the 6+ months test. But that isnt the point, the entire sample set and percentages within them is now not comparable, if we were to have such a different response rate. That would mean 999,000 people of a comparable sample would be missing. It calls into question using those percentages in general, doesn't it?
Hey yall, I notice some people having trouble with the third person singular of the verb "to be," which is the verb...."is." So, I went and found a decent explanation of when "is" signifies a verb/predicate, as is often the case. Usually it is an auxiliary verb or linking verb formed by "to be" + "modified other verb/noun/adjective." This might help some people:
How is is used in a sentence?
Is can be a linking verb or an auxiliary verb. When it functions as a linking verb, it links the sentence’s subject to another noun or an adjective. When it functions as an auxiliary verb, it supports the main verb in the sentence.
As a linking verb
My niece is her class’s valedictorian.
Our library book is overdue.
The bear is brown.
Language Arts is my favorite class.
As an auxiliary verb
It is supposed to rain tonight.
My mother is training for a 5k.
As I recall the story, he is remembering the details.
My PC is running a new Linux distro.
Is this all the time or just with certain question types? My guess is there is a central concept, like sufficiency and necessity and how they translate / or how the LSAT uses wording in a convoluted way, that you might be messing up. LSAT loves trap answers, I've learned to look for a lot of these.
I found this question very difficult due to the wording. I understand that logically, if you take celestial objects as a monolith or a single kernel, it works out the way it is mentioned in the explanation. However, practically speaking, as it is a plural, and thus deals with many objects of unknown nature, it seemed that the confusion of planets don't generate light with "only planets don't generate light" really wouldn't matter, as one, it is not stated nor is it really assumed, or at least I cannot make that leap with the information given. I mean, it COULD be an assumption, but it also doesn't have to be, and as such sufficient and not necessary. I'm actually still trying to understand how to parse this one. The plural object really throws me off.
There might be ways to trick someone here that people might want to watch out for. Let's take the first example:
Most students in Prof. Snape's class can brew potions masterfully. All students who can masterfully brew potions are invited to join the Slug Club. Therefore, most students in Prof. Snape's class are invited to join the Slug Club.
This works, is valid. But, if we just remove the modifier to "in professor Snape's Class" we change the domain, superset/subset relationship. whatever. We get:
Most students in Prof. Snape's class can brew potions masterfully. All students who can masterfully brew potions are invited to join the Slug Club. Therefore, most students are invited to join the Slug Club.
This would be invalid.
I'm a little lost on how question 1 actually contains an embedded conditional. To me, there is only one condition sufficient for another. Driving out the poachers. Reworded using group 3 rules we would have: "If we don't drive out the poahcers, the relocated pandas will not prosper." The other side of this conditional seems to be a single predicate in many respects. We are not debating whether or not the pandas need relocating, that is just a modifier.
I would map this like this:
/DPoachers -> p/prosper
Whether they're relocated or not seems irrelevant and not in any way implied as a conditional.
In fact, most of these questions seem to have a single conditional with a heavily modified subject....
I need help with Question 3:
Par 1)
"Only" introduces a necessary cond- NO! WAIT! This isn't just "only." It's "THE only." "THE only" introduces a sufficient condition (Group 1).
How would this indicate sufficient? Where is this explained? If I were to equate sufficient condition to "enough" and the necessary condition to "must," it seems to me that "The Only" would equate more to "must" than "enough." Can anyone explain this to me?
Also, it seems I am not getting the rules of group 4 specifically, and yet I go back and I do not find where there are nuances.
The Rule of group four is to negate one of the two clauses and put that as the necessary condition. At least, that's what I wrote down from the previous lesson. However, if I do that, it seems one way is correct and the other isn't, thus confusing sufficient and necessary.
We have "No myths would have been written down unless they contained truths that people wanted subsequent generations to remember." If I chose to use the unless as a indicator and thus apply the rules of Group 4, I get the clauses [No myths would have been written down] unless [they contained truths], which we can reduce to the symbols:
/written
truths.
However, it says in the rules to negate either clause and make it the necessary condition. So, what if I chose truths? This would then be:
/written -> /truths
truths -> written
However this seems to be at odds with the above explanation in which JY uses the sufficient negate rule of group 3. In that, we would get the reversal.
So, can someone explain this to me?
I would love it if you could diagram out the Kumar argument to show why it doesn't hold water, so I took the opportunity to do it because it is confusing. However, if you translate it to Lawgic and use the principles established, it works out.
First, lets change it to a sufficient condition statement to see the difference: "Students are cited as "late" if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell."
In this, we have [clause 1] if [clause 2] -or- [Late] if [5+]. However, because this is sufficient, we have to reverse it in Lawgic. So we have
5+ -> Late and the contrapositive /Late -> /5+
now if we plug the Kumar notation in this as the Lawgic formula we were taught, it would be (I will be using K5+ for Kumar's symbol for simplicity):
P1) 5+ -> Late
P2) k5+
--------
C) kLate
It's valid. Notice how the equation is aligned with 5+, the sufficient condition, in both premises.
However, lets look at the necessary condition: "Students are cited as "late" ONLY if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell."
With these, you don't reverse clause 1 and 2. So we have [clause 1] only if [clause 2] -or- [Late] only if [5+] -or- Late -> 5+ (notice the difference?)
P1) Late -> 5+
P2) k5+
_
C) ?
You cant actually draw a conclusion form this. It's on the wrong side of the equation. The form of these equations has to follow A -> B, with A being in the premise 2 section and B in the conclusion to be valid.
k5+ would actually have to be kLate in P2 using this example to get a valid conclusion. As it stands, these are switched around. Tricky tricky. I hope this helps. It was the only way I could come to understanding it.
Just going to point out that the indicators are called "conditional indicators" in the first half of the video starting at about 1:10, however they are changed to "logical indicators" by the end. This might confuse some people.
I find it kind odd that this information is presented after a fairly long time of studying. It probably should be in an introduction of the process.