I am trying to figure out how I can better understand negating conditionals. For that I tried to start with truth tables for conditionals. But I found that I am unsure if I understand the truth tables for conditionals.

“Princeville is a city in Quebec. If you live in Princeville (P), then you live in Quebec. (Q).”

In what situation is the conditional relationship P→Q true and in what cases is it false?

In other words when is P sufficient for Q and Q is necessary for P. There are four possible outcomes:

1)  you live in Princeville (P=T),  you live in Quebec (Q=T). (P→Q applies & is true)

2) you live in Princeville(P=T), you do NOT live in Quebec(Q=F). (P→Q is false)

3) you do NOT live in Princeville (P=F), you live in Quebec (Q=T) (P→Q is F?!? why?)

4) If you do NOT live in Princeville (P=F), you do NOT live in Quebec (Q=F). (P→Q is F?!? why?)

The last two rows do not seem to be very clear for me if we look at set/subsets.

If I replace the conditional statement with subset symbol P→Q =P⸦Q the truth table does not seem to be very clear.

However, the following (from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/frontrange-mathforliberalartscorequisite1/chapter/1-8-truth-tables-conditionals-and-biconditionals/) makes more sense to me.

p → q where p is I live in an apartment and q is then I pay rent. 

What are the outcomes?

1. I do live in an apartment and I pay rent, then the situation is true (no eviction!)

2. I live in an apartment and I don’t pay rent, then the situation is false (eviction, broken promise)

3. I don’t live in an apartment but I do pay rent, then the situation is true (though why would you do it?)

4. I don’t live in an apartment and I don’t pay rent, then the situation is true (no promise broken)

-

The truth table makes sense if we define and look at conditionals so:

"If P then Q" simply eliminates the possibility that both P is true and Q is false.

P⟹Q  ≡  /(P and /Q)  ≡  /P or Q

For the inverse:

It would be nice if there was a clear example of how to do the same for an inverse please. I can do it if /P→/Q = / [/(P and /Q)]  = P and /Q. However is there an easy to understand example for this?

Is the reasoning flaw in the stimulus that it concludes what makes something not censorship from the sufficient condition for censorship?

If A or B, then Censorship exists.

From this, we cannot conclude that censorship does not exist.

Similarly, in (D),

If A, then heroic.

From this, we cannot conclude what's not heroic. A is a sufficient condition for being heroic, not its necessary condition. If it were the necessary condition, we have a way of concluing that something is NOT heroic. Is this all there is to see in this question?

Hi! I managed to get a 172 on the January LSAT, despite not being in the best mental state. I'm retaking in June and aiming for 99th percentile. Anyways, I just started anti-depressant medication a few weeks ago, and am worried that it might be giving me brain fog/lack of motivation and focus. I feel pretty much the same, maybe just in a bit more of a positive mood. My last PT was a 177 (with medication), but it was also an older test. Has anyone had experience with medications affecting their score? I don't want to be in a situation where it affects my ability to focus on the test, and I end up with a lower score in June....

Hello all,

I'm looking to see if anyone wants to collaborate with me to study via zoom or in person, mainly to keep each other accountable, but also to bounce questions off each other sometimes. I'm currently scoring around 154-157 range and am I aiming to get to 165+ . I typically study after work around 5 o clock but I can be flexible.

Hello, looking for a zoom study group to do co-working. I am not interested in doing review or going over answers, just co-working at a set time in the evening (EST). I work 9-5PM and workout early mornings. Hoping a co-working space will keep me accountable! Shoot me a message if interested.

I couldn't see how the term "normal" was used differently between the two speakers? Would someone be able to clarify how to focus on that? I completely brushed over that.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-1-question-10/

I've noticed that a huge issue I'm having right now is drawing way too many boards on logic games. Whenever a question introduces new conditions, I can't just picture it in my head- I need to be able to visualize it. I've always been the same way with numbers, I've always been terrible at mental math. What should I be doing to help this? Will I make better inferences in time? I take the LSAT in like a month and would love to address this soon.

I'm going through the curriculum right now and I'm up to LR pseudo-sufficient questions. There were some lessons in which I felt sort of weak on (for example weakening questions), though I feel compelled to just keep going as I want to finish the curriculum in the allotted time I originally planned in my study schedule. How often should old lessons be reviewed? Should I drill down those lessons before going on? Or should I just keep going, finish the curriculum and then go back and review old lessons?

I am just happy that I have finished the test today and got sort of valuable experience for sure. A bit lost for some time out of panick. Remote testing at home. No technical issue encountered, proctor was very friendly. Had a ten-minute intermission for the restroom, came back and went through security check.

Honestly, LG was not that hard, and it was the only reason I rushed to take the test this time because I have practiced a lot over a long period.

My goal is 170+, which I know, is only realistic with tons of efforts, at least, for myself.

I will continue to study for the next one in Aug.

I started out with a diagnostic score of 153 and have been scoring 168-172 for the last 5 practice tests, and my main struggle is consistently LR sections. I have begun doing flashcards with the logical indicators to drill which group they go with, but want to gain a lot more confidence with arguments and logical relationships. Does anyone have tips they have used to better comprehend logical arguments and practice to become more confident in these sections? Thanks!!

Curious what people think about this question. The second rationale is essentially that a punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Applied to the answer choices, we are to understand that we are not looking for an exact match, but rather a consistent parallel form of reasoning.

So, rationale: punishment = severity of crime.

A: Correctness = fairness

B: Correctness = what society deems correct

C: Correctness = consequences + inherent fairness

D: Correctness = consequences + intuitive rightness

E: Correctness = consequences

Curious on why A is the best answer. Fairness? Is this because attaching fairness to the correctness of an action is consistent with determining the severity of a punishment on the severity of the crime? There's no clear linkage.

Hello 7sage hive mind!!

I have a few questions re: Character and Fitness section.

Every school asks if you have ever been disciplined for academic or non-academic reasons. Do university parking citations count as being disciplined by the school? Does anyone care? This was 7+ years ago.

Along a similar vein... If schools want to know about speeding tickets, should I disclose written warnings? Also, should I disclose when I was pulled over but not issued anything?

I'm clearly down the rabbit hole here lol.

Thanks in advance for your advice

deleted

Hi,

Based on all the discussion online, this question seems to be very infamous, so anybody who can help me here would be a genius.

I was stuck between A and E here-- they both looked so good, so I ended up sticking with E (the wrong answer) because E had slightly more accurate terminology (I thought that maybe "environmental consequences" in A may not be the same thing as "environmental degradation" as stated in the stimulus and E). A ended up being the right answer (not surprised there), but how is E wrong?!?

My prephrase here was that: "Thus, the electric car will not result in an abatement of environmental degradation caused by auto emissions"

E looked right to me because abatement (according to the dictionary) seems to mean the same thing as "net reduction". As a result, E looked like a perfect answer almost word for word.

Can anybody explain why E here is completely wrong?

Thanks!

Best regards

Is it appropriate to direct message a partner at a big law firm on LinkedIn for an informational interview? Or should I stick to associates?

Hello,

This question took me a while to understand why A was not the answer. Anson concludes that Dr. Ladlow isn't a responsible psychologist. The question stem asks: "Anson bases his conclusion about Dr. Ladlow based on which of the following?"

A ) If anything, the attack on his character would be the conclusion, not the support for the conclusion. Furthermore, from what I understand a personal attack would be more along the lines of: "Dr. Ladlow smokes cigarettes; we shouldn't believe anything he says"; not a professional criticism.

B ) Is correct because it takes the general principle within the stimulus of that responsible psychologists need to consider the potential of evidence that could refute their own findings, which Dr. Ladlow fails to do. Thus by failing to adhere to a general principle, Anson states that Dr. Ladlow's incorrect.

C ) There's no ambiguous term within this stimulus.

D ) Anson doesn't dispute Dr. Ladlow's facts (i.e. that the Dr.'s theory about rats isn't correct, its just that Anson adds to the notion that he must also consider the possibly that it might NOT be correct)

E ) Anson doesn't reject the Dr.'s theoretical explanation.

Hey everyone, so I wrote my first ever LSAT in November and I am pretty happy with my score. My first diagnostic was a 141 and now on the November Flex Exam I scored a 163. What I was hoping for some opinions on is my next move from here. Currently, I am signed up for the January flex exam (I signed up immediately after writing the November exam in a somewhat state of panic lol). I am happy with my score as it lands me in a good spot with the schools I have applied to (I am a Canadian student), and my GPA for my last 20 is also pretty good (3.695/4.0). I am torn on whether I should keep going with the January flex or withdraw. My average scores for my prep tests leading up to the exam ranged from the mid to high 150's to mid 160's, which is why I feel happy with my performance on exam day and feeling a little uneasy about whether I will be able to improve upon my initial score of 163.

Let me know what you guys think, I don't have many resources or people to draw from so I am interested in what the 7sage community has to say!

Thanks :)

The lsac website says tbd - week of the 14th. Can you assume you will be testing on Saturday the 14th or Sunday the 15th? When will the official date come out?

Any Tips on getting better at LR. I'm not doing so great on this section of the test and need help. This section is keeping me from my target score.

Hi,

So I can see why C is definitely a better answer choice than all the rest. However, I find myself confused by the fact that I am not sure how we can tell that the author thinks that doctrine of precedent is a "useful tool" here. Can anyone #help me with this?

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-3-passage-2-questions/

Hello,

When answering principle questions, we want an answer that obviously doesn't violate the stimulusm, and conforms most to the text.

Is too general an answer choice bad? And in using certain words (specifically the medical advance question in the PT 40s) , can we assume that two words can mean different things or that one word can be more inclusive and cast a wider net than the way it is used in the stimulus?

So one question said that medical tests are advancing so that we can detect diseases early, but most of these diseases aren't curable yet by medicine. Then it raises an ethical dilemma.

Now the answer choice I put is "the more we learn, the more you realize how little we know".

The correct answer choice was "advances in medicine can raise ethical concerns".

If we assume that advances in medical technology/tests constitutes an advance in medicine then I understand it. But it states that we can't cure them using current medicines so can we really say medicine advanced?

It was too uncertain to me so I went with the wrong answer, the more general one. Or maybe there is another mistake in what I chose.

Thanks and GL studying !

Any tips on Specific Reference RC questions? These are consistently the only questions I miss when doing RC passages and if I can improve my efficiency on these I'll see really solid improvement on my RC section scores. I've been reading passages from my monitor while notating on scratch paper to accommodate for the Flex but I recall seeing that Specific Reference questions will be different in some way on the Flex but don't quite recall how. Thoughts?

Hope this helps others:

#1. Weakening (Except)

○ I assumed that the correct answer choice (which would need to be the one that did not

weaken the argument) needed to be one that strengthened the argument. In reality,

something that is neutral suffices as something that does not weaken

#2. Flaw

○ I failed to realize that words like (to) promote, elevate, develop, forward, advance, stimulate,

assist, foster, boost, catalyze, nurture and encourage are NOT synonyms for sufficient nor

necessary.

○ Instead of choosing the answer choice that attacks the argument, I chose the answer choice that

merely validated the opposing argument. Just because an argument is true that does not mean its

opposite is false.

○ I failed to realize that the correct answer choice was subtle which lead me to choose the best

incorrect answer choice since it appeared to say what the correct answer choice is saying.

#3. Main Conclusion

○ I chose the context and/or intro statement instead of the conclusion

#4. NA

○ I skimmed the stimulus

○ I did not choose the correct answer because it was a pretty strong statement which the correct NA

answer choice usually is not. Sometimes the NA is strong.

○ I did not see how the correct answer choice helped to connect everything up. Focused way too much

on looking for those ACs that when negated, destroy the argument. I did this at the expense of

looking for those ACs that when negated burn down the bridge formed by the correct AC.

○ I failed to correctly identify what the implication would be if the assumption inherent in the

correct answer choice was reversed.

○ I failed to focus on the conclusion and instead mistakenly focused on the premise/support that is

integral to the conclusion

○ I assumed that the correct answer choice would need to, when negated, be able to destroy the

argument but it merely needs to make the argument irrelevant.

#5. Parallel Flaw

○ I failed to ensure that all of the elements of the flawed argument I chose amongst the answer

choices aligned with all of the elements of the stimulus' flawed argument including modifiers such

as "safely" or "obviously conclude" versus "must conclude".

○ Sometimes does not mean some

#6. Strengthening

○ Only appears to be strong but does nothing to strengthen the argument

For anyone who doesn't have access to an appropriate device and needed the LSAC to send you their tablet loaner to take the FLEX, did you have any problems with it? Did it come with a charger, keyboard, etc? Any thoughts on the experience overall?

Hello,

Can anyone provide me feedback on my DS? I am also willing to do a timely exchange with you!

Thank you :)