Discussions

All posts

New post

495 posts in the last 30 days

Perhaps I missed something as I do not remember a lesson on biconditionals (double arrows).

My understanding is that each term is both sufficient and necessary for the other.

Here are some indicators that I've noted:

A or B, but not both

A if, but only if B

A if and only if B

A when, only when B

If A, then B, vice versa

If A, then B, otherwise not

Except A, B

I have seen J.Y. mention "except" and "otherwise" in a video, but I am confused in regards to their usage as a biconditional indicator. In the past I've categorized "except" as a group 3 indicator, so that is causing issues in my thought processes.

Would someone elucidate these?

Also, list any other biconditions indicators/ tips that you've encountered.

Thanks,

JD

2

Hi everyone,

So yesterday I took the June exam. I was pretty prepared, had visited the classroom a week before, felt focused and ready. We checked in, entered the room and sat where we were assigned. And then...the construction started. Not just a few taps from a hammer, I'm talking full-on, constant, heavy machinery construction. Right on the walls of our classroom. So loud that we couldn't hear the proctor. Of course, students protested very strongly (I thought there was going to be a riot) but our proctors told us it was too late to withdraw, that LSAC would not refund or reschedule. The university wouldn't let us move classrooms, even though they made the mistake and scheduled the construction at the same time of the exam. So we took the first three sections with the construction. I tried very hard to not let this shake my concentration, but it was impossible to think!

I've decided not to cancel my scores, because I will be out of the country in October and won't be able to retake. I'm planning on lodging a complaint to LSAC, even though I know they won't do anything for us. Just thought I would vent a little here and see what people think...!

1

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum.

So I recently watched the "Foolproof Method" video for LGs and it seemed to me, that the 10 copies were supposed to be done back to back until memory kicked in for all inferences? I'm concerned with memorizing the answers and subconsciously not utilizing any inferences. In that case, should I, perhaps, wait 24 hours+ in between repeating the same Logic Game?

Thanks for the input, guys.

0

Hey guys, I was going over my old PT's and I still cannot get a full understanding of this question.

The stim basically says:

"if violation of explicit rules are routinely left unpunished, chaos results. Therefore, we ought never to allow any explicit rules to go unpunished."

Well, this is a typical

A->B

/B

-----

/A argument structure.

I can see that the author assumes that we do not want chaos, but I don't think LSAC is that crazy to think that it is a flaw.

The answer choice hints at us that the actual flaw of this stim is that there is a flawed jump from "routinely" to to "never," but I don't see how this works.

Any thoughts?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-22/

0

Admin. Note (11/8/2019)

Edited to add: Please see the following update by @"David.Busis" (also in Comments)

"Hey everyone—I can speak for @"J.Y. Ping" when I tell you that this advice from six years ago is no longer valid.

The writing sample matters.

Some admissions officers read all writing samples as a rule; some only read it for certain applicants under certain circumstances. Regardless, it matters. If the admissions team might read it, you have no choice but to act as if they will read it."

It doesn't matter. It's not a part of your score. Do it according to instructions and you'll be fine. I'm not really convinced that admissions officers even read the samples. Seriously, who can still read handwriting?

The setup will ask you to make an argument, so make an argument. You will argue that out of the two options to pursue, one is better than the other. What metric do you use to argue for "better?" The setup gives you two goals, constraints, metrics, whatever you want to call it, that's how you argue for "better."

Make arguments for both sides. But, ultimately argue for just one side.

For example, we need to get off the island. We have two options: bridge or ferry. We have two constraints/goals/metrics: safety and speed.

Argument: We should take the bridge. The bridge is safer and faster. Some people think the ferry is safer and faster but they are idiots. They make arguments like X, but, come on. X, really? That's all you got? Come on. So, we're in agreement, yes? Off to the bridge!

The above satisfies the instructions, but is a very bad argument. Imagine if that's on an LR section. You'd tear that argument to pieces! So, make sure you don't make arguments like that one. Call out any assumptions you make, e.g., "I presume blah blah blah is the case." Don't make fallacies, e.g., attacking an argument with "Come on."

Anyway, by the time you get to this section, the test is pretty much over and you should feel overwhelming relief. So, try to have some fun with it! :)

12

I have been doing a good amount of practicing with logic games this past week or so and I been noticing that grouping games with more than two groups have been giving me a lot of trouble. Is there any way to approach them without having to resort to creating a sub-diagram for each question?

0

I have heard before that for except without until you are supposed to negate the necessary condition and the sufficient condition and turn it into the contra-positive. I often find this difficult and/ or confusing and I was wondering if there was a simpler way to do it. Examples would be appreciated :)

0

For the logic games where the question asks you to replace a rule with another rule to maintain the same effect on the game...

I know that you can't replace it with a new rule that allows for a possibility that the old rules would not allow (wouldn't be the same effect). But, is it also true that you can't have a new rule that is a subset of the old rules? As in, the old rules allow for more possibilities than the new rule. That wouldn't be the same effect either, right? So you would have to find the same set of possibilities?

If that makes any sense..

0
User Avatar
•

Thursday, Jun 6, 2013

ajd0008768

50/50 Answers

When I am taking my practice tests I often come across questions (in LR sections, specifically) where I am certain that 3 of the answers are wrong, but am unable to clearly distinguish between the other two. For time's sake I usually put the answer that seems best and move on. Somehow, at a percentage that seems mathematically impossible for a 50/50 scenario, I miss almost every one of these questions. Is there any tricks, or specific things to look for in order determine the better of two decent answers?

0

Of course you are. You're about to take an important test. It's not the most important test though. That one you'll take in October (or December or next February). :)

I'm kidding! Most likely, this is the last LSAT you'll ever take. I'm just trying to say that for something as important as this, there are second chances. That's definitely not true for most important things, so you should feel good knowing that.

For most of you, you already know what you'll get on this June LSAT. Take your past three recent (i.e., 59-68) properly administered LSAT prep tests and average your score. You'll get plus or minus 3 points of your average. I suppose one assumption is that on Monday somewhere between the third or fourth announcement of "5 minutes remaining" you do not suffer a small heart attack... Anyway, ask yourself, will you accept your average as your official LSAT score?

If not, further ask yourself if you are willing to study more. Be honest and realistic. This test is crushingly difficult to study for. You know this. If you are masochistic enough to call yourself determined, then great, we will be determined right here with you.

If so, then congratulations. You are as prepared as you can be and there is nothing standing between you and that score. You've seen everything they'll throw at you, every attack, every ambush, every evasive maneuver. You've amply demonstrated your ability to respond. Monday will not be new day and the June LSAT will not be a new LSAT. LSAT 69 will be just like LSAT 65 and LSAT 64. People just like you took those LSATs and they're in law school now.

For Monday, this is the only thing I want you to remember: keep moving.

You will encounter curve breaker questions. Every LSAT has a couple. Every student who has ever taken the LSAT before you encountered them. You will too. I'm telling you this now, so you'll be prepared. Skip the curve breaker questions if they are too difficult. Don't let a couple questions break your rhythm.

Just keep moving. You got this.

P.S. If you're in NYC, come have a drink on us Monday evening!

http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/56/nyc-open-bar-post-june-lsat-monday-evening

12

Over the past year I know that some people have mentioned seeing grouping games with elements reused. I know this isn't a recent trend (many of the older games have multiple groups 3+ with each group getting at least one or up to 3 items).

However, the game type I am referring to is your standard in out game (2 groups only) but just because one element is in the "in" column, it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be in the "out" column. Nowhere in the scenario does it say that "each element will be used exactly once." Basically, the elements can be "reused." Also, the number of elements aren't limited to just 3, but range from 5-7.

Some ppl have told me that the test put a twist by splitting the elements into 2 subgroups (i.e., women vs. men)... and adding in a weird rule (i.e., chairperson in group 1 can't be in group 2)...

What is the best way to prepare for this type of game? I recall seeing this type of game just once (PT25-S3-G1), but its a very straight fwd grouping game with a twist in which there must be at least one member shared...

0

When I finish the "Sufficient Assumption & Pseudo Sufficient Assumption Questions" section, have I finished the Logical Reasoning lessons? In other words, are the topics covered in the previous lessons the only topics in the syllabus that will help me in the LR section of the LSAT?

0

It really helps me understand the concepts of assumption questions by looking at it formally. Could someone check my logic?

So say we have a premise (B->C) and we have the conclusion (A->C) and say we have the two question stems

Question stem 1: Which one of the following, if assumed, ALLOWS the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Question stem 2: Which one of the following assumptions is REQUIRED for the conclusion to be properly drawn?

For question stem 1, we're looking for a sufficient assumption. Is that just saying something like

___ (and) (B->C) -> (A->C)

so in this case (A->B) would be the obvious sufficient assumption that fills the blank?

For question stem 2, we're looking for the necessary assumption. Is that saying

(B->C) (and) (A->C) -> ___

where the necessary assumption fills in the blank? Something about this doesn't seem quite right.

2

Hey guys, I know most of you aren't in NYC. But, for those of you who are, we want to let you know that we're having an open bar event in the evening. Drinks on us.

Hopefully, this gives you something to look forward to. Whether you'll be in the mood to celebrate, commiserate, or cry, the important thing is for us to do it together!

More details to come!

7

How I read the stimulus was: say we let Q be the statement "create virtuous people"

Glen: I believe Q is most important because P (an alternative) is not desirable

Sara: But Q is more dangerous than P

I can't seem to get past why answer choice C is wrong. Glen's closing sentence states he endorses law's primary role to create virtuous citizens implying there is negligible danger in making Q the most important. On the other hand Sara counters by saying this is more dangerous than being overprotective of individual rights, thereby implying she believes there is an inherent danger in the government deciding what constitutes virtuous behavior. Wouldn't this point be something they directly disagree about?

So E summarizes Glen's argument, but Sara simply disagrees by stating Q is more dangerous than an alternative and seems to imply Q may not be the most important. But I feel that the level of interpolation to go from Sara's argument (Q being more dangerous) to Sara believing Q is not the most important is the same as that for C.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-17/

1

An Eagle's Eye for Detail is needed for this one.

I understood the question.

Study people easily angered--> more likely to have permanent high blood pressure--> More likely to get Heart Disease

Conclusion: Heart Disease can result from psychological factors (Anger)

I see E and look at it, and think it says "Psychological factors" cause both anger and high blood pressure. I then, think to myself, well, that wouldn't weaken the argument because that'd essentially cement the conclusion that "Psychological factors" caused heart disease.

Then, I looked at E again, it said "PHYSiological" which are different from "PSYchological" factors.

To summarize, have an eagle's eye for detail.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-22/

1

Go watch the new star trek movie. Its great! Just watched it last night. There is some nice logic thingies with spock you will enjoy and would motivate you.

Don't worry, its not like the first one (if you didn't enjoy the first movie). Its so much better than the first one too. And if you haven't watched the first one, you would still understand this one.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?