Lawgic

wam7041

I am almost through the foundations section of the 7Sage curriculum. I do not understand lawgic and I am disappointed in myself. I decently understand it, however when we put it all together to draw valid conclusions, I get lost. Is this normal? Should I move on to the logical reasoning section or relearn everything in foundations?

natemanwell1

Need more clarity on what you mean: I do you "not understand it" and "decently understand it" at the same time. But the logic on the lsat should be pretty cut and try: translate with arrows (clouds lead to rain is the same as A => , only valid inference is the contrapositive not(B) => not(A), using some set theory.

JDream2025

Memorize the words that triggers sufficient and necessary. Do not move forward until you know how to draw logic because that's kind of the core of any argument. Give yourself time since this is like a new language. I will leave some examples here for you.

I will not go to school if it is raining. IF triggers sufficient which always goes on the left side and necessary goes on the right. So whatever follows IF goes with it; they hang out together. My sentence will look like this, If raining then not go to school. "Not go to school" is necessary, which always goes to the right side of the sentence.

Now to draw a contrapositive, just switch it and negate it.

Original sentence: If raining then not go to school.
Contrapositive: If go to school, then not raining.

As I said before, there so much more to this, and it builds up to more advanced. You can do this. Keep at it and it will click.