PT31.S2.Q21. - Is it necessary to draw the same Lawgic as JY Ping?

Comments

• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  June 2021 edited June 2021 2249 karma

  I don't think it's necessary to diagram exactly the same way so long as you can understand the argument and see that there is a mistaken reversal and that A doesn't necessarily know about the conditional statement. But I do think "AK(B3)" is enough on its own since it communicates the same message (Alicia knows the bank deposit was made before 3 pm) in a less cluttered way
• Webby_Songdo Alum Member

  June 2021 677 karma

  @Ashley25 said:
  I don't think it's necessary to diagram exactly the same way so long as you can understand the argument and see that there is a mistaken reversal and that A doesn't necessarily know about the conditional statement. But I do think "AK(B3)" is enough on its own since it communicates the same message (Alicia knows the bank deposit was made before 3 pm) in a less cluttered way

  Sounds good. Thank you so much!
• FindingSage Alum Member ⭐

  June 2021 edited June 2021 2042 karma

  When I first learned lawgic I diagramed a lot. I think it is good idea to learn to diagram well so that you really learn this at a deep level. That being said, I have studied for a long time and seldom write anything down except for on logic games. I score in the target range you are asking about. And while I would say there are people that do diagram in this score range, there is also are people who learn to process in their heads or who only diagram out a few questions. When I read I translate each sentence into plain English and ty to push out any inferences or connections to the previous sentence.

  So for this stimulus I read:

  • As soon as I read "Only when" I recognize that this is setting up a necessary condition- In this case I simplify this in my head to say bank deposits are credited same day ****only when**** before 3 and Alicia knows that the bank deposit was made before then.

  At this point as I am trying to any inferences or think about the sentence I am getting really skeptical because I already see two major flaws.

  1st- Just because the deposit is credited the same day only if made before 3 pm does not mean the deposit was actually credited. What if the account number was written down wrong on the deposit slip? What if the ATM machine broke? What if the deposit was made at the wrong bank or to an account that was over drawn?? There could be lots of reasons that a deposit that was made at 2:59 pm was not credited. The only thing I know here is that if a deposit is made at 3:01 pm or later it will NOT be credited the same business day.

  2nd- Alicia " knows". Knowledge does not equal fact. Again what if Alicia thought her bank account was at Wells Fargo but actually her account it is at Chase? The assumption that someone's knowledge is fact is another flaw that repeats itself commonly on the LSAT.

  Even before I read the second sentence here I could have guessed what Alicia was going to conclude- of course she concluded that the deposit was credited the same business day because I have already figured out that she has made these two flaws.

  At this point, knowing it is a parallel flaw reasoning question and the question stem specifically asks about two flaws I know that the flaws I identified are going to be the flaws that I will find in the correct answer. Having seen similar questions I am going to guess that the "wrong" answer choices will look like this:

  • Not flawed- It is very common in parallel flaw questions to see one or even two answer choices that are not in fact flawed. They are attractive because intuitively they look and feel good. But if the stimulus is flawed we must pick a a flawed answer choice, same thing if we see a parallel reasoning question. If a parallel reasoning question has a valid argument we need to pick a valid answer choice.

  • We will also see other answer choices that feature one of the flaws, not both. Since sufficient/necessity confusion is the most common and favorite of LSAT flaws I would guess we will see multiple answer choices that have this flaw but of course only one of them will have the knowledge being taken as fact issue. This is of course the correct answer.

  Knowing also that I am looking for these two issues means that I don't need to need to diagram out the answer choices. I can quickly scan answer choice A for example and see that it doesn't have any kind of knowledge piece and eliminate quickly. On first scan answer choice B looks flawed but not the same way. I slow down when I see answer choice C to make sure it checks out and then quickly check the other answer choices.
• Webby_Songdo Alum Member

  June 2021 edited June 2021 677 karma

  @FindingSage said:
  When I first learned lawgic I diagramed a lot. I think it is good idea to learn to diagram well so that you really learn this at a deep level. That being said, I have studied for a long time and seldom write anything down except for on logic games. I score in the target range you are asking about. And while I would say there are people that do diagram in this score range, there is also are people who learn to process in their heads or who only diagram out a few questions. When I read I translate each sentence into plain English and ty to push out any inferences or connections to the previous sentence.

  So for this stimulus I read:

  • As soon as I read "Only when" I recognize that this is setting up a necessary condition- In this case I simplify this in my head to say bank deposits are credited same ****only when**** before 3 and Alicia knows that the bank deposit was made before then.

  At this point as I am trying to any inferences or think about the sentence I am getting really skeptical because I already see two major flaws.

  1st- Just because the deposit is credited the same day only if made before 3 pm does not mean the deposit was actually credited. What if the account number was written down wrong on the deposit slip? What if the ATM machine broke? What if the deposit was made at the wrong bank or to an account that was over drawn?? There could be lots of reasons that a deposit that was made at 2:59 pm was not credited. The only thing I know here is that if a deposit is made at 3:01 pm or later it will NOT be credited the same business day.

  2nd- Alicia " knows". Knowledge does not equal fact. Again what if Alicia though her bank account was at Wells Fargo but actually her account it is at Chase? The assumption that someone's knowledge is fact is another flaw that repeats itself commonly on the LSAT.

  Even before I read the second sentence here I could have guessed what Alicia was going to conclude- of course she concluded that the deposit was credited the same business day because I have already figured out that she has made these two flaws.

  At this point, knowing it is a parallel flaw reasoning question and the question stem specifically asks about two flaws I know that the flaws I identified are going to be the flaws that I will find in the correct answer. Having seen similar questions I am going to guess that the "wrong" answer choices will look like this:

  • Not flawed- It is very common in parallel flaw questions to see one or even two answer choices that are not in fact flawed. They are attractive because intuitively they look and feel good. But if the stimulus is flawed we must pick a a flawed answer choice, same thing if we see a parallel reasoning question. If a parallel reasoning question has a valid argument we need to pick a valid answer choice.

  • We will also see other answer choices that feature one of the flaws, not both. Since sufficient/necessity confusion is the most common and favorite of LSAT flaws I would guess we will see multiple answer choices that have this flaw but of course on of them will have the knowledge being taken as fact issue.

  Knowing also that I am looking for these two issues means that I don't need to need to diagram out the answer choices. I can quickly scan answer choice A for example and see that it doesn't have any kind of knowledge piece and eliminate quickly. On first scan answer choice B looks flawed but not the same way. I slow down when I see answer choice C to make sure it checks out and then quickly check the other answer choices.

  Wow, thank you for your thorough input. I was able to glimpse at the mind of those scoring exceptionally high on the LSAT, and this response demonstrated just that. I always like reading this kind of response because it helps me to see the question in a different light. Your response reminded me of having a dialogue with my first LSAT tutor who scored 176 on LSAT Flex. I have heard people tell me that those who score high on the LSAT tend to be picky, and it is tiring to deal with them, and I do understand what this complaint means. However, I also feel as it is necessary to read this kind of response for me to flex my brain muscle to do well on the LSAT. Anyways, thank you so much for your detailed thought, and I look forward to continuing my LSAT journey. Hope your day goes well!
• FindingSage Alum Member ⭐

  June 2021 2042 karma

  You are very welcome! And thank you so much for the nice compliments, they really made my day. It has taken a long time to feel like I have this kind of understanding of the test. When I started studying one of the most frustrating parts was that I could watch explanation videos and I could listen to someone explain each answer choice but I still felt like I was missing the behind the scenes approach- like I wanted to see what high scorers were thinking as the processed the stimulus, did they go straight to the answer choices or had they processed any kind of prediction? How did they choose to diagram or skip a question for example.

  As I have studied further I have become a firm believer that the answer is in the stimulus. As in when you are reading the stimulus if you are reading a fact set ( like in must be true, or resolve reconcile explain) you should be simplifying each sentence as you are reading, and pushing it together and figuring out what inferences you can push and what conclusions you might be able to make. For an argument on the other hand you should be reading critically, accepting premises as true but making a mental objection or two as you are reading the conclusion. And then based on the question stem, you decide what to do with the inferences or objections you have found. If you were answering a strengthening question you would be blocking the objection or if you were looking at a resolve reconcile explain question you want to have a strong idea of what the paradox is before ever looking at the answer choices. Approaching the stimulus this way helps you begin to see patterns even before you know the names for them.

  And maybe not all people who have or do score nicely on the LSAT like to help others or are willing to explain their viewpoint, but I have personally found 7Sage to have some wonderful people who are willing to do so. Keep asking questions- the community here is really amazing!
• Webby_Songdo Alum Member

  June 2021 677 karma

  @FindingSage said:
  You are very welcome! And thank you so much for the nice compliments, they really made my day. It has taken a long time to feel like I have this kind of understanding of the test. When I started studying one of the most frustrating parts was that I could watch explanation videos and I could listen to someone explain each answer choice but I still felt like I was missing the behind the scenes approach- like I wanted to see what high scorers were thinking as the processed the stimulus, did they go straight to the answer choices or had they processed any kind of prediction? How did they choose to diagram or skip a question for example.

  As I have studied further I have become a firm believer that the answer is in the stimulus. As in when you are reading the stimulus if you are reading a fact set ( like in must be true, or resolve reconcile explain) you should be simplifying each sentence as you are reading, and pushing it together and figuring out what inferences you can push and what conclusions you might be able to make. For an argument on the other hand you should be reading critically, accepting premises as true but making a mental objection or two as you are reading the conclusion. And then based on the question stem, you decide what to do with the inferences or objections you have found. If you were answering a strengthening question you would be blocking the objection or if you were looking at a resolve reconcile explain question you want to have a strong idea of what the paradox is before ever looking at the answer choices. Approaching the stimulus this way helps you begin to see patterns even before you know the names for them.

  And maybe not all people who have or do score nicely on the LSAT like to help others or are willing to explain their viewpoint, but I have personally found 7Sage to have some wonderful people who are willing to do so. Keep asking questions- the community here is really amazing!

  Thank you so much! Tomorrow, we have a webinar of NYU-Columbia Law admission officer. I am excited to be a part of that, too. What a great community JY created here! Again, I really appreciate your thought!
• mikesben Core Member

  June 2021 27 karma

  yes, JY is gawd.
• Webby_Songdo Alum Member

  June 2021 677 karma

  @mikesben said:
  yes, JY is gawd.

  haha, indeed, he is awesome (: