It appears you are confusing instance of negation with contrapositive. Contrapositive is the rephrasing of a conditional in terms of negations (as in, P --> Q means the exact same as /Q --> /P), but contrapositive is not negation of the original statement.

Your item 3) is the correct parsing of the necessary part of the conditional statement of rule 2. Each of your 1) and 2) represents an instance when 3) is negated. E.g., J couldn't be more expensive than both K & L if item 1) were true. However, neither 1) nor 2) is the correct negation of the necessary part of the conditional statement of rule 2, which should read as follows:

((K - J) or (L - J)) --> (H - G)

Poster above is correct.

I think a slightly more intuitive way to think about this usage of Venn diagrams (which is just another way of representing a set, which is also what the poster above is doing).

Also, A some C is a "weaker" relationship statement tying together A and C ("weaker" than A --> C). Former requires mere intersection; latter requires A to be completely within C (or else be equal to C).

If the weaker relationship statement is invalid, it stands that the stronger statements (e.g. A -m-> C and A --> C) are also invalid. In this case, if there is not an instance of intersection, how can the entirety of A be within C.

TH> @cherry641 said:

@cherry641 said:

I have a spreadsheet of LG sections I have done, and one piece of information I write down is the target time.

It seems that lately, some of the times for particular games have been changing, sometimes rather by relatively large increments (say ~1.5 minutes). Take for instance the following:

On PT23, the new and (old) times are: 5:31 (5:53), 10:40 (10:40), 10:15 (11:20), and 8:30 (7:37).

The same occurred on PT28. Game 2 is now 10:53 as opposed to ~12:40, and Game 3 is now 9:30 as opposed to ~10:45.

I understand that these times are pegged to how a particular subset (namely people who get -1 or 0 on LG) do, but I am wondering if this change is intended or if it's merely an artifact. Could @cherry641 or any of the course designers chime in on this?

Hi there,

I just want to get back to you on this.

We recently updated the statistics with the newest data that is why there is a significant change on the target time for some questions.

I hope this helps! Let us know if you have any other questions.

Thanks for looking into this. I should also add that at least part of the revision is appreciated, because some games previously didn't have a target time.

However, could you (and/or course designers) shed some light on the practical implications for games whose respective target times did end up changing a bit? I think this is a salient point from a pedagogical perspective, because going under recommended time is one of the factors for determining when to stop the fool-proof process.

Take the aforementioned PT28 G2. Whereas one may very well decide to stop after getting that game down to ~11 min, now there is doubt as to there is a solid grasp. Conversely, for G4 of PT23, whereas previously one wouldn't think ~8:00 is an indication of having a solid grasp, now such a time would suggest so.

Or perhaps it doesn't matter all that much. I subscribe to the view that when I do an entire LG section in fool-proof, I should stop when the total time on review is a few minutes under 35:00; however, I'm not sure if the course designers have ever clarified on whether they take a similar view. As such, any input on how we should handle the differences would be greatly appreciated.

I presume you haven't deleted your old practice LG sections. If so, go back and just see how much over target you are for each specific LG game (I know, this requires a bit of work). You can then narrow down the specific types of questions causing you issue and focus on those.

For the vast majority of us, a lot of this comes down to practice and time spent. And after some 200 hours on LG, I can begin to get close to or below target time for the sets that I use for foolproofing (which means I've done the particular game probably at least twice or thrice), and maybe ~45 minutes for a fresh set of games from a standard difficulty LG section. Personally, I found that I was "seeing" more of the inferences after after having spent 180 hours.

I should also note that not all of the games are good for foolproofing, as certain games are so memorable that one tends to remember the details themselves, whereas the goal is to internalize the method of thinking. In this regard, most In-and-Out games are great for foolproofing, whereas some grouping games are not.

There's actually an option for setting a customized # of hours/week, except it's grayed-out, and one gets the impression that it couldn't be changed (though in fact, it can be adjusted).

If you go to https://classic.7sage.com/study-schedule/

right above the blue button reading "Make Custom Schedule" is a sub-heading reading "Study rate:", followed by a grayed-out text box. You have to click on the sub-heading "Study rate:" first before being allowed to enter a custom value into the text box, but once active, just enter the actual # of hours, and presto.

@juliet7sage this particular issue of website presentation (re: the grayed-out option) ought to be improved, as it's confusing

First thing to note is there are actually 39 games (1-35, A-C, and F97). Also, on the first few takes of a particular test will likely take longer, even if one has already seen those questions. For someone middle-of-the-pack such as myself, I would expect to spend at least 1.5 hrs/ test at the beginning (45-50 minutes per test/ + review whatever I felt uncomfortable). Use the unlimited time option, because you want to know how much time you spent on each question.

Also, this has been noted elsewhere, but do leave time each week for the particularly troubling sections from the previous week. You want some elapse in time, so that you aren't relying on short-term memory, but you also want to see if you are getting all the inferences you should be making

One other thing to note is that I've find timing myself on the BR to be helpful, for it gives me a sense of a reasonable time within which to finish a particular game the next time I encounter it.

As @gabeshelton3715 mentions, it could actually be quite fun. Personally, I've swapped NYT Crossword for LG.

@juliet7sage , do you use an Excel file/ spreadsheet or do you use another software for the tracking?

@ashleytien240 said:

At this point after being stuck at 165 for forever and ever I’m just looking at these kinds of posts and going like how?

"How" is an easy question to answer: combination of dedication, natural talents, and often a supportive surrounding. The difficult part is whether any of that is applicable or could be adapted to our individual circumstances.

Before I go any further, I should note that this particular forumite has been quite helpful to those of us in the preparation phase, and much of her wisdom are useful to the rest of us, even if the colloquial we (or perhaps just I) most likely won't see the type of results she was able to attain. What I write next is not a critique of her per se but rather the self-reporting tendencies at large and 7Sage's selection of anecdotes for its podcast.

That said, there's a built-in self-reporting bias, namely, we are much more likely to hear of self-reported stories of success, than we are to hear of struggles or stories of the merely successful (let's not lose track that a 165 is still better than what 85% could muster). Furthermore, many who are preparing gravitate toward these types of anecdotes, because they hope to glean a morsel or two of wisdom. The anecdote teller may not even offer anything constructive to the forum at large in recounting his/her own story (again, this is not applicable to this particular forumite), but I'll wager there will be quite a bit of participation and encouragement whenever such a thread is started. About a month back, someone claimed to have scored a 175 and then brazenly started advertising tutoring service in the same post by soliciting PMs, all this despite not being on the approved tutor list. Yet that thread quickly filled up with posts of "please PM me" (at least one page worth) before the thread was rightfully deleted. Unlike the forumite featured here, that poster offered nothing and was merely angling for commercial opportunities; yet there were so many willing to give that poster a chance.

In a sense, we who prepare are in a position of "weakness" and those who made it are in a position of "strength". Some who made it are kind people who wish to share their wisdom with others (such as the forumite featured), some wish to brag (only human nature), and others (such as the aforementioned poster with an alleged 175) merely wish to use it as a front for ulterior motives. To many of us who have not reached the promised land, the intents and motivations don't matter, all that matters is discovering how to reach the promised land. It is a form of appeal to authority (which, granted, is a lot better than appealing to a snake oil monger), but in another sense, it's a trap of mistaking high scores per se as a sign of there's something one could glean, learn, and adopt.

Then there's the issue of why 7Sage has this type of anecdotes on its podcasts. Out of the 60 serialized podcasts to date, 17 are on personal anecdotes of 7Sage students. All but one scored 170 or higher (and the other one scored 169). Most of the 17 also have experienced quite an increase in their scores (lowest increase appears to be from 164 to 174). Both attributes are highly unrepresentative in the grand scheme of things (though perhaps there's a higher proportion of such students among 7Sage users), with all of the scores being in the top 5 %tile. You know this, I know this, and most people who are studying know this. But whether by coincidence or by design, it seems that a high score is a prerequisite to getting featured. But why do you think these podcasts focused on non-representative anecdotes are there anyway? The question to ask, as with most things when someone's interest comes into play, is to ask cui bono; whoever that person may be, it most definitely isn't strictly pro bono.

Bumping this in the hope of receiving feedback.

I should note that the phrasing in PT44.S3.G3 is different from the following in Q2 of PT5.S2.G1, which reads

"If John passes all his courses and receives a higher grade in geology than in either language".

Here, it's more than clear that the referent of either is necessarily both languages (Russian and Italian) as opposed to possibility of one but not the other.

@pam2198538 said:

No, W does not have to be in the group. You can have T or F without W, but based on your wording, both T and F would mean that W has to be out ("if W, then T OR F").

That assumes "or" to be an exclusive or (viz. xor), which we cannot assume, b/c there's nothing in the original post to suggest that.

@pam2198538 said:

I have a random question LMAO! If in a grouping logic game the rule is: if W then T or F

does that mean that if I have T or F in the yes/in group, I must have W as well

or can I have T or F without the W

As initially phrase, and assuming "or" to be standard or (as in, one, the other, or both), W --> (T or F) is really a nested conditional (parentheses necessary because order of operation in logical statements go from right to left).

What it is saying is that assuming W is true, then one of T and F has to also be true (viz. T & F cannot be both out when W is true).

It's essentially saying, if it's not the case that W implies T, then it is the case that W implies F.

In conditional form, it is 1) /(W --> F) --> (W --> T), which is the equivalence of 2) ((W --> F) or (W -->T)) and 3) /(W --> T) --> (W --> F)).

As to your original questions, if either of T and F is true, the nested conditional is rendered irrelevant. I'll demonstrate for T, but you should repeat the exercise for F and then for T & F.

If T is true, W --> T is automatically true (necessary statement of a conditional satisfied). Since (W --> T) is itself the necessary statement of the larger nested conditional, the entire nested conditional is also true. W & F can then be anything, because the nested conditional has been satisfied (by virtue of W --> T being true).

You may say, but what about forms 2) and 3) of the statement. While I could respond that because forms 2) and 3) are equivalents of form 1), so that I don't need to show additional proof, I think it's instructive to show what happens when T in the sufficient part in form 3) is true.

If T is true, then W --> T is true. Which makes /(W --> T) false. As /(W --> T) is the sufficient part of a larger nested conditional, making the sufficient of this nested conditional false satisfies the entire nested conditional. W & F can then be anything.

Now here's a question for you, what's the implication if T is in the out group? To make this easier, what must be the truth value of W, and what does that imply for truth value of F?

@maxtylerporter384 said:

I want to go to flex law school (part-time online) because I am in my 30s and already had an phd degree. But I heard law firms usually do not want hire a lawyer with a part-time law degree. They won't treat my flex JD seriously.

Depends on the intended practice area. In what specialty do you wish to practice?

For some specialties, a significant proportion obtained their JD as part-time students, often with the JD earned often while working in a firm and with tuition paid by the firm.

Part-time online is a whole separate matter though.

@davidbusis895 said:

Great question @stutimalhotra308, but you don't have to worry. We'll never hijack forum discussions or meddle with your posts. We're just adding another option to the mix.

@dimakyure869 said:

@stutimalhotra308 said:

Given that there's now a vested interest for 7Sage to promote its own tutors, how will this affect inquiries and recommendations when a poster solicits for a list of names? Would such a solicitation go on unimpeded, or would you be "directing traffic" to tutors with express business relationship with 7Sage?

Or would there be a "firewall" of sorts between the TestPrep division and the tutoring division?

Discussion posts are addressed largely by the community and 7sage "approved tutors" who are otherwise not affiliated. I haven't seen any indication that traffic would be directed to paid services... in fact quite the opposite–I (unaffiliated "approved" as opposed to a "7sage tutor") get requests from student services to address questions in the forum that have otherwise gone unanswered.

Appreciate you both chiming in.

It's good to know that those in charge do intend to preserve the ethos of this place.

Public library is always your best bet.

https://www.dclibrary.org/reopen

https://www.dclibrary.org/services/meetingrooms

I can't speak for the Misc games outside of PT1-35 (and PT A-C and JF97), but there are categories even within those Misc games.

One type is what I would call Spatial, but instead of two or three rows wherein each row contains a fixed number of slots, the arrangement is a pentagon or a hexagon. I think I've seen at least two of these.

Then there's the type I would call Change Tracking, where the test specifies a set of initial condition and some possible changes to the system, and asks you to identify how things evolve after each iteration of change. I've definitely seen three of these.

There are then probably some truly random Misc games. As @johnzawarski486 stated, if nothing else, those teaches one to plod on when confronted with unfamiliar material.

Given that there's now a vested interest for 7Sage to promote its own tutors, how will this affect inquiries and recommendations when a poster solicits for a list of names? Would such a solicitation go on unimpeded, or would you be "directing traffic" to tutors with express business relationship with 7Sage?

Or would there be a "firewall" of sorts between the TestPrep division and the tutoring division?

Only at certain law schools. Not all offer this option.

I also took propositional logic in undergrad and am more familiar with the conventions that @vorrathjohanna295 mentioned.

As such, when I started the CC section on logic games, I was also a bit perplexed at first when 7Sage has "or" written out as /P --> Q. I think one of the key reasons for doing this is that it forces one to get into the mindset of noticing the triggering conditions, and certainly, writing P or Q as "/P --> Q" or "/Q --> P" encourages that type of response. And this practice is particularly conducive for chaining conditionals, which are often expressly the main theme of In & Out games.

That said, it isn't perfect, as the example of "neither nor" above shows. Even worse is when one needs to translate P or Q but not both. I personally write it as P xor Q, and it has the benefit of appearing in a clear, uncluttered manner. 7Sage uses conditionals to represent this, and that alone tends to make things confusing (not to mention the fact that xor rarely occurs, which makes it even more stress-inducing to write in terms of conditionals). I actually skipped JY's explanation of a particular game where the xor operator played an important role.

But overall, the former approach works for the vast majority of scenarios I've come across (at least in PT 1-35), where the latter is advantageous for only a few instances. In which case, the 80:20 rules prevails: adopt the notation that is helpful for 80% (actually higher than that) of situations, but be prepared to use the alternative notation in the other 20% of situations.

As a trained chemist, perhaps this scenario above (specifically, inability of a particular representation to fully capture an idea) was a bit easier to accept. It isn't all that different from utilizing Lewis Dot Structures to represent certain aspect of chemical structures, while utilizing other representations to illustrate aspects that Lewis Dot Structures cannot represent well.

@wraith985-4026 said:

Hey does anybody know what J.Y is using to write on screen with ( The electronic pen)???

I find it very useful for logic games the way you're able to delete/ copy master game boards

One major caveat: unless you plan on using such an app + device when you tutor others, the whole thing does nothing to help you on your test.

The interface used for the actual exam is bare-bone, and there's no place for you to write on-screen.

Concurred with poster above.

Think from the perspective of a resume evaluator (whether that be an admission officer or HR personnel); how would s/he think of this?

Mentioning a job offer that was tendered to you but indefinitely postponed would likely raise more questions than not (even with if the offer was rescinded/ not taken up for perfectly reasonable purposes). At best, it distracts from the rest of the resume; at worst, people may get unnecessarily suspicious about it (despite it being perfectly innocuous).

Few other items for thought. It sounds like you have an employment contract; carefully read through it to understand the grounds for termination during your probation period (e.g. termination for performance and ethical reasons only, and not a carte blanche).

Next, though it is true that your supervisor contemplated that you may not be available in middle of October (when the inquiry was made a month ago), the facts on the ground have changed since then, specifically caused by you answering his inquiry the affirmative. It would not be reasonable to expect him to be as agnostic toward it the way he was a month ago (your answer rendered moot the applicability of his previous disposition toward how you would answer the question of availability).

If you do decide to take the day off, it would be better to inform earlier. Your training may entails coordinating the hours of another company employee (if not someone else from outside of the company). There is a difference between informing people 4 weeks in advance vs. 1 week in advance. This would especially the case for, say, training provided by someone from the outside, who allows for free rescheduling two weeks before an event but would not give a refund for rescheduling requests for events due to take place more immediately. Perhaps suggest an alternative time (preferably before the originally proposed date).

Also, your supervisor might not even care to know why you are taking the time off (and a simple "I would need some time off for personal matters" may suffice). I know that U.S. service sector jobs (and certain university research labs) have the reputation for supervisors who would purposely deny reasonable requests for person time (sometimes out of spite), but many others really couldn't care less why you are taking the time off, as long as you could take the time off. This is even more likely to be the case in a country where the work week is 35 hours.

Lastly, say in the unfortunate event that you were to inform prior to the start of your job, and your supervisor deemed it out-of-bounds that he wished to terminate your contract, I personally think that would not qualify as being terminated from a job. How can one be considered to be fired from a job, if one hasn't began working at said job? Then again, IANAL (this should be abundantly clear), and the above is merely for brainstorming. But I also have accumulated quite a bit of life experience, and one of my faults when presented with decisions is the tendency to view things as binaries, when in fact, things aren't as drastic as they originally appear.

Hope that helps, and good luck with the test and the job.

If I were you, I would consult a local labor attorney re: your rights. Yes, you are on probation, but labor protection in general is stronger in Europe (especially EU member states), and there may be benefits which an employer cannot take away from you, even if you are on probation. All of this is jurisdiction dependent (much like how numerous states in the U.S. are at-will employment states but a few are not, and those can lead to some stark differences).

Also, you should probably read into the fine details, specifically re: how do you accrue said 2 weekdays of holiday per month. Are the first two days accorded to you after the completion of the month, or does the accrual occur right off the bat (and occur on a pro rata basis)? Would you be considered to have worked enough hours to have earned one day (or even half-day) off by the 14th?

Now, arguendo, assume you were employed in an U.S. state where employment is at-will unless stated otherwise, but the other fact patterns remain the same (specifically, you have to take the test on a week day), this becomes an issue of compromise and risk tolerance. What is more important to you (job vs. taking the test)? Are you willing to risk being terminated on probation? It would appear you answered in the affirmative when asked whether you are available for training; to walk back on that later may be looked upon unfavorably. I have no idea what types of work experience you have, but many jobs will have questions that asks whether you have been terminated from a position in the past 5-7 years, and getting a termination notice may have negative consequences long down the road.

@dk415827, many thanks for taking the time to clarify (your already very helpful) advice.

@dk415827 , thanks for taking the time to share your experience. I have a clarification question re: your approach to LG above, specifically items 5 & 6.

One is that do you actively scan the questions (as in flip forward) when locating the type of questions mentioned in item 5? I sometimes skip forward when the stem essentially demands finding the one choice that is false, but I don't actively scan forward.

And the second is whether your advice in item 5 would also apply to stems that adds a premise and asks for what could be true (as opposed to must be true).