Translating to Lawgic

KevinSage

In the lessons that cover conditional reasoning (existential/universal quantifiers), I get almost every single practice problem correct...however, when going through actual LSAT problems, I can't seem to translate what the stimulus is saying into Lawgic. I feel that if I can only nail down this one specific problem-area down, I can answer more questions correctly... help?

goalis180

Practice. I have the same issue, and when I started to practice it just started to click a little better. Regardless, mapping out questions is only for practice, you wont have time on the test.

KevinSage

wow, really? I mean, I guess that depends on the person taking the test, but still shocking.. I guess it truly does have to be second nature and completed all in my head

Pacifico

I think the Logic lessons are awesome on here but then people get too hung up on diagramming, and that is especially harmful when no conditional logic is in play but people still try to map it that way. You need to concentrate on the forest and not the individual trees. Definitely take the time to master conditional logic, but know that you will want to be able to develop an intuitive understanding of it to the point that you are diagramming few if any questions during the actual test. You will only have time to diagram on the test if you can consistently finish with extra time and that doesn't happen if you diagram every question with conditional logic as you move through the test. You need to know when it is useful and when it isn't, and that comes with practice.

And remember, as I alluded to above, most questions on the LSAT do not use conditional logic. Maybe 10 at most per LR section and even that is a bit high. So don't get stuck trying to use it when it's not in play.

c.janson35

Mapping out questions is not only for practice; if there were no time to map out on the test then there would be no reason to practice it so heavily. It's a tool in your arsenal to use when you take a test. Sometimes mapping questions will allow you to answer the question more quickly; other times mapping will cost you time. The trick is in developing the awareness of when it will be beneficial for you to do so.

I think it is natural at the beginning of LSAT prep to want to diagram every relationship that you see because actively doing something feels better than just staring at the stimulus. You'll progress out of this, though, once your skills are up to par. But that doesn't mean that you won't ever have to diagram questions. As with all things on the LSAT, practicing will hone your intuition.

Final note, if you're having trouble diagramming a certain question, it's probably a good sign that that question does not need to be diagrammed, or that it is best suited to not diagram. If, only if, unless, all, every, must, required, are all really easy to put into conditional logic; if you are trying to diagram sentences without any indicators then more often than not I would say you are simply trying to force the issue in a place that it doesn't belong.

Pacifico

+1 to everything @c.janson35 added!

c.janson35

Haha @Pacifico I literally just shouted you out in the same way on another thread