Some conditional statements can be very confusing - especially if there's an "or" or "either/or" in the necessary condition!
Either/Or in the necessary can be super confusing when there's also a negation in the statement (ex: either this, or not that)
But we can simplify using Lawgic to understand what's going on!
Identify the Lawgic first. If there is an "or," write that in the necessary condition. Don't worry if it doesn't make sense yet.
Ex: A --> B or /C
Zero-in on the necessary condition of the Lawgic statement. (pretend the stuff to the left of the arrow doesn't exist right now).
Ex: B or /C
Apply the Group 3 translation rule to the necessary condition. Take either element, negate that element, and then make that element the sufficient condition. But wait! We're still working on the right side of the arrow. So, bracket your new Lawgic condition in parentheses.
(C --> B)
Here, I negated /C, which makes it a yes-C lol.
Now, we have 3 arrows. Bring on back that stuff from the left side of the arrow.
Ex: A --> (C--> B)
Scoot the parenthetical sufficient element out to the proper sufficient section. Have the element jump across the main arrow. Then, marry the sufficient elements together with "and"
Ex: A and C --> B
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
Here's my spin on this lesson.
Some conditional statements can be very confusing - especially if there's an "or" or "either/or" in the necessary condition!
Either/Or in the necessary can be super confusing when there's also a negation in the statement (ex: either this, or not that)
But we can simplify using Lawgic to understand what's going on!
Identify the Lawgic first. If there is an "or," write that in the necessary condition. Don't worry if it doesn't make sense yet.
Ex: A --> B or /C
Zero-in on the necessary condition of the Lawgic statement. (pretend the stuff to the left of the arrow doesn't exist right now).
Ex: B or /C
Apply the Group 3 translation rule to the necessary condition. Take either element, negate that element, and then make that element the sufficient condition. But wait! We're still working on the right side of the arrow. So, bracket your new Lawgic condition in parentheses.
(C --> B)
Here, I negated /C, which makes it a yes-C lol.
Now, we have 3 arrows. Bring on back that stuff from the left side of the arrow.
Ex: A --> (C--> B)
Scoot the parenthetical sufficient element out to the proper sufficient section. Have the element jump across the main arrow. Then, marry the sufficient elements together with "and"
Ex: A and C --> B