LSAT TRAINER: Translating Conditional Statements (pg. 256/257 - exercise)

MatthewJA

Hello everybody,

I was wondering if anybody could help clarify something for me.

I am currently reading chapter 18 on the trainer re: SA and P questions, and there are some exercises and lessons on the conditional indicators covered early on in the 7sage curriculum. Mike Kim states that "unless" is used as a necessary indicator (vs. J.Y negate - sufficient method) and that "no" is a sufficient indicator (vs. J.Y negate - necessary method).

Example: "No duck likes water". My translation using 7sage method would be:

"No"= negate necessary category
2 idea's: Ducks; (liking) water
translation: pick and idea, negate it, make it your necessary condition
=> W --> /D

Mike Kim's answer is = D --> W.

Am I butchering the simple translation rules? Translating and "seeing" the logic, is something I feel that holds me back from progressing through the logical reasoning section/question types.

Thanks everyone.

Matt1234567

You have to be careful, No duck likes water is different from what's on the conditional drill in the Trainer, which is "No duck doesn't like water" which is translated into D - - > W

MatthewJA

Hey Matt,

I reached the same conclusion with you about #3...

3. No duck doesn't like water: D--> W. Correct.

BUT, my question was with #5. "No duck likes water".

?

Matt1234567

Hey Matthew,

Was that a typo in your original question that Mike Kim's translation of "no duck likes water" as : D- - - >W? Did you mean D - - - >/W?

That's why originally I was confused and thought you were referring to question 3.

MatthewJA

Hey, no problem.. sorry about the confusion. The translation and "lawgic"/logic are a problematic area for me, so I'm just trying to improve my skills and get as much feedback as possible.

You are right, in that I mixed up his answer for #3, thinking that it was for #5.

The Trainer/My translations for #5. are correct. I appreciate your responses. Thanks for being on the ball.

Matt1234567

Np Matthew, it happened to me a bunch of times until I got over my lawgic hunch. Good luck!

Aiesha G.

No duck likes water means that if u are a duck then u don't like water. Idk how u guys use the lawgic for this question. For me it is a matter of understanding what is being said. I forget all about the reverse negate rules when the words unless, no, none etc are used. I found that using the lawgic confused me and it wasn't until I stopped thinking in terms of necessary, sufficient etc that I was able to get these types of conditional rule translations correct.

Sometimes focusing on all that stuff can hurt more than it helps if you are like me and tend to overanalyze. I revert back to English and ask myself if I were to say this to someone in a conversation, what would I be trying to say? Ducks like water? D -->W. No. Because if NO duck likes water then how can ducks like water? Lol. So it's D-->/W Not knocking your method you have to do what works for you.