Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 26 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Group 3 Logical Indicators problems
J Aranda
Member
Just started Group 3 Logical Indicators, and I'm confused. I'm not confused about the process (or at least I don't think I am). With Group 3 Indicators, you pick an idea, negate it and make it the sufficient indicator. I'm going through the flashcards, and when I'm applying the rule, it's not making any logical sense. I'm getting the correct answer, but translating it back into English, makes no sense to me. Here's my logic for some of them:
Add pennies until I tell you to stop.
/P > S
Do not add pennies until I tell you to stop
Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.
There is no point unless we win
P > W
There is point unless we win
Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement
Sing until the cows return
/S > CR
Don't sing until the cows return.
Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.
I know I"m doing something wrong. I don't know if I"m properly picking the binary opposite, or what I'm doing wrong. Please someone walk me through it.
Thank you
Comments
Ok from what I see, please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you are adding the group 3 indicator back in after translating the logic the first time.
Let's take the second example: There is no point unless we win.
You translated this correctly. /P--->W to P ---> W
After doing this, you take it back to English with the new translation: If there is a point, we win. (there are multiple ways to say this).
You did it right on all three, just don't carry the group three indicator with it.
Hope this helps!
Here are my translations, which are subtle shifts in tense and meaning.
Contrapositive: If I haven't told you to stop, then you're adding pennies.
Contrapositive: If we haven't won, there isn't a point.
Contrapositive: If the cows haven't returned, you're singing.
Honestly, I am not sure how to articulate to you the thought process of understanding the concept. I hope just seeing examples will help you. I will think about it some more and maybe come back with more explanation.
Basically, for the purposes of the LSAT, you're trying to get something out of logical chains. They're there to be directive, to tell you something. So I think of them as rules or commands that trigger outcomes.
I guess one way to think about it would be to not just put the logical indicator back into the statement automatically. The arrow can be thought of as 'then' rather than a copy of the original indicator.
So I am diagramming it right, but its useless unless I pull the right meaning from it.
Based off what you're saying, I need to shift my tense. But I guess the thing I'm struggling with is it doesn't make sense in my head unless I negate them both, like we were doing for Group 1/2 indicators. Take for instance.
Following the Group 3 Indicator Rules
Steak is not good without salt.
SG>/S
Steak is good without salt.
Makes no sense because it doesn't match the original meaning. But, if I negate the necessary as well, then it makes sense again
SG>S
Steak is good with salt, which is the original statement...
So as @akeegs92 pointed out, don't put the Group 3 word back into the phrase.
Once you've got it in the conditional representation, use "If>Then" statements to translate it back to english.
So the steak one becomes, "If the steak is good, then there is salt."
@J Aranda So let's look at your first sentence
Steak is not good without salt.
Without is group 3 negate sufficient. The 2 ideas are: Steak being good (or not good in this case) and salt. To properly translate, I'm going to select Steak being not good. Since without negates an already negative statement, it turns it positive.
We now have: StkG---->S with the contrapositve being /S---->/StkG
English: If a steak is good, then it has salt.
Don't carry the group 3 word to the translation. You can now just use group 1 or 2 to communicate what you have.
To add to this as well. If I wanted to take StkG--->S back to English and use the word "unless", I could say:
Unless there is not any salt, the steak will be good. Lawgic: /StkG---->/S (your original statement)
The steak will be good, unless there is no salt on it. Lawgic:/StkG---->/S (your original statement)
I see what you guys are saying. Thank you so much for clearing that up for me.
@akeegs92 and @AllezAllez21 have nailed it. The point of the "group" indicators is to take a more complicated/complex sentence, and translate it into a very easy and simple "if-then" statement. Everyone knows what "if A, then B" means. So the indicators are just helping you take a more grammatical sentence and convert it into the simplistic "if this, then that". If you end up with Since, Unless, Without, etc. in your translation, you've done it wrong.
Just look up as much examples as you can until you get comfortable with it. Post specific examples here if you run into them and get help. This is a very critical skill to have developed before progressing much in your studies. Don't skip it and think it won't matter much, or convince yourself you understand it if you don't. Conditional indicators are tough to master.
I thought I understood what you guys were saying, but I guess I'm not, because I'm still winding up with the same problem. Example:
Without physical exercise, health deteriorates.
PE>HD
If there is physical exercise, then health deteriorates.
I took out without, and made it a if/then statement, but it still doesn't translate back into my original...
Edit: Watching JY's explanation, he's saying you take out the without, which is what I did, but I guess I didn't realize you keep that negation, and not make it a positive. So you're not including the Group 3 indicator with the negation...am I understanding that right? Because then I get
/PE > HD
If there is no physical exercise, then health deteriorates, which makes sense with the original statement.
You seem to have got the concept at the end of your last post. It is a straight forward application of Group 3 indicators.
Without physical exercise, health deteriorates.
Two concepts are (i) physical exercise (PE) and (ii) health deteriorates (HD)
Take one of the concepts. Let's choose PE here. Now, do the following:
The result is /PE --> HD
We can phrase this many ways, for example:
If you avoid physical exercise, your health will deteriorate.
If you are at least maintaining your health, then you are engaging in physical exercise.
etc.
Per the LSAT Trainer, it can be helpful to think of group 3 indicators as identifying a necessary condition. We often see this in everyday language with phrases such as "I cannot leave the office until I've finished my work." Leaving the office requires finishing the work.
Additionally, as the example on physical exercise above illustrates, it can be helpful to consider the until, unless, except type indicators as identifying a statement where there is a "default" case, i.e. something that will always be the case, barring the introduction of another item.
E.g., In case of fire, take the stairs (TS), unless otherwise instructed (OI).
translates as /OI --> TS
This makes sense here because chances are during a fire you will not have received instructions when you realize you need to leave the building. Ok, so we don't have other instructions, so let's default to taking the stairs. And the contrapositive states that if you see someone in an elevator, then they were instructed to do so.
Been doing the flashcards and the questions/answers for this section and I have been getting them right, and my translations have been matching the original statement.
Thank you guys so much for the help!
Yeah I think you got it now. Just remember, when it comes to Group 3, or even 4 also, you need to identify 3 things:
Once you figure those out, it should be very straight forward. You could turn something positive to negative or vice versa. At the end, it should be a very easy Group 1 indicator sentence (if statement) as the final product. Use the quizzes to help. They are a very under-rated part of the course. I recently finished the CC, and went back to other translation quizzes to help me with lawgic and it has helped me immensely. You got this!
Another amazing way I learned this is with quizlet. It's a mobile app that lets you create flashcards. I didn't create the content, but I used it at the beginning of my studies and highly recommend it. If you're waiting for something, instead of looking at fb/insta/sc/twitter/whatever, just do flashcards for a few minutes.
https://quizlet.com/127239090/conditional-indicators-flash-cards/