Lawgic

Comments

• Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 8021 karma

  I don't know if I have that question available or not at the moment, but I just wanted to point out that lawgic will pretty much never be required in RC... It's more an LR/LG tool. As for the why: We use it as a tool to cut through all the bullshit that LSAT writers put in LR stimulus to distract you. If conditional logic is not being used in the question or ACs, there is generally no need for lawgic on that particular question. Since it is just a tool, it is essentially a crutch to carry you through the questions that use conditional logic. For the easiest questions, you should be able to go without that crutch, but as the difficulty increases, your need for the crutch will increase until your intuition catches up to your lawgic skills. The goal is to not have to use them on test day, so use them in prep to help develop an intuitive understanding of conditional logic at work in the stimulus and AC of LR questions.
  
  For LG, it's pretty straightforward in that it helps to simplify the rules and outline of the game so you can make a game board and know what goes where. With question driven games it then helps to make new game boards and force out inferences. I'll try to find that question you posted and parse it out for you if no one else posts before I get home later.
• Gia_Henry Alum Member

  August 2015 94 karma

  Thank you, @Pacifico
• 1 Like

  nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 7965 karma

  @Pacifico said:
  We use it as a tool to cut through all the bullshit that LSAT writers put in LR stimulus to distract you. If conditional logic is not being used in the question or ACs, there is generally no need for lawgic on that particular question.
  

  Gold.
  
  

  @Pacifico said:
  Since it is just a tool, it is essentially a crutch to carry you through the questions that use conditional logic. For the easiest questions, you should be able to go without that crutch, but as the difficulty increases, your need for the crutch will increase until your intuition catches up to your lawgic skills.
  

  Pure gold.
  
  Someone give this man a cigar.
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 2398 karma

  I took a look at the question you referenced above, and am thinking you may have put the wrong one. I don't know how you would even go about diagramming PT29,S1,Q7 if you were asked specifically to do so, as this question doesn't have any Lawgic in it.
  
  Diagramming can be useful though, and I don't think the goal should necessarily be to not have to use it on test day. Used sparingly I think diagramming can be of great benefit. For example, PT59, S2, Q19 I diagrammed the short stimulus to affirmatively arrive at my answer and move on, using my "work" in the same way I would use it in LG--to uncover what the right answer is and then scan through the choices to find what matches.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 7965 karma

  @c.janson35 said:
  Used sparingly I think diagramming can be of great benefit.
  

  Yesh

  @c.janson35 said:
  PT59, S2, Q19
  

  This question was VERY satisfying
• Gia_Henry Alum Member

  August 2015 94 karma

  I guess this is where I was confused then. In the logical reasoning sections, I'm missing 10 to 13 questions, so I thought I would go back and study basics. I guess I was thinking that the lawgic was to be used to learn how to figure out all question types. I've got the diagramming down for the games, as it makes sense to me there... but I couldn't figure out how to apply it to the logical reasoning. So... I guess it's because it doesn't always apply. What types of questions would I use the lawgic on, and can you demonstrate one or two here, or does that go against LSAC copyrights?
• harrismegan Member

  August 2015 2074 karma

  I think you find lawgic most commonly in..... parallel reasoning, MSS, SA, PSA, and MBT questions. I may be missing a few (mind is blanking!!)
• Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 8021 karma

  The first thing you need to consider is that while I've never seen it happen, the LSAC writers could write a whole test with every type of LR question stem and no conditional logic whatsoever. It is not a property of certain question stems, nor is it a property of arguments. It is an entity unto itself that, for the purposes of the LSAT, can be used to make arguments in a formulaic fashion. The key to diagramming lawgic to solve questions that use conditional logic is to be able to abstract the argument out to a simpler form. You can then evaluate the validity/flaw/gaps in the argument in order to address the needs of the question stem. If I were you I would perhaps go back to the lessons on valid and invalid argument forms and use that as a primer for conditional logic so that you understand the implications of the form. Then go back to the Logic section that teaches translation and indicators and such, and then hit up the Advanced Logic section to cap it off. The indicators section is what will help teach you when to use lawgic and when not to. The rest will help you to more quickly identify correct and incorrect arguments. I would also hit up the sections on both kinds of parallel reasoning questions, because for the ones that use conditional logic the ACs give you a great opportunity to diagram more content and evaluate the validity of the arguments.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 edited August 2015 7965 karma

  @"Gia_Henry" said:
  I guess I was thinking that the lawgic was to be used to learn how to figure out all question types.
  

  I maybe use lawgic on ... 3-5 Q's per section, max. Typically go 0-3 on LR sections. So, I don't think it's the diagramming that's holding you back. More just understanding of arguments and reasoning structure. That would be the Fundamental I'd work on if I were you.
• NYC12345 Alum Inactive Sage

  August 2015 1654 karma

  @Gia_Henry
  @Pacifico
  @nicole.hopkins
  I would suggest trying to understand the argument before translating it into conditional logic. It's difficult to understand the big picture if you're focusing on the wording and not the argument as a whole. With a lot of practice you will not have to diagram most logical statements.
• Gia_Henry Alum Member

  August 2015 94 karma

  Thank you guys! You all have been a big help! I have some direction! If you think of anything else that will help shore up my basic understanding of arguments... please let me know!
• 2 Likes

  DumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 7468 karma

  After I completed the curriculum, I had a Lawgic Addiction too. Reading LSAT Trainer really helped cure me of that problem. Like everyone has said, it’s just one of many tools that you have in your arsenal.
• 2 Likes

  nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 7965 karma

  @DumbHollywoodActor said:
  Reading LSAT Trainer really helped cure me of that problem.
  

  Yes! Just because JY uses lawgic a lot of the time to EXPLAIN a problem doesn't mean he would recommend using lawgic in real time. Take a gander at some of the videos of sages doing LR sections ... Lawgic only rarely makes an appearance.