Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
quinnxzhang
About
- Username
- quinnxzhang
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,097
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
@"J.Y. Ping" Sure thing, I sent a (rather long) email to your 7sage email! Let me know if you didn't get it for any reason.
-
@"J.Y. Ping" I think 7sage does cover everything necessary for the LSAT -- (though I will say that knowing some basic modal logic would really help on 77.4.20). And I think the lessons you linked on quantifiers and their negations are good. However…
-
I second My Cousin Vinny. Really liked Joe Pesci's performance, and the judge's voice in the movie conveyed such gravitas. I've also heard that it's fairly accurate and is sometimes used as a teaching aid.
-
@cal6005, regardless of whether your method worked for you in the past, it's straightforwardly incorrect. It's very important to understand that the negation of "If P then Q" is NOT "If P then not Q". This is a major mistake! I say that with no host…
-
@cal6005 said: So for example, if I said "If a dog is sick, it will seem tired and lazy," the negated statement would be "If a dog is sick, it will NOT seem tired and lazy" This is incorrect. The negation of 'A → B' is '~(A → ', or equivalently 'A …
-
I also debated retaking, but what ultimately convinced me not to was that the risk of getting a lower score far outweighed the benefits of a higher score. If you're aiming for scholarship money, your cost-benefit analysis may be different from mine.…
-
@"Accounts Playable" said: In propositional logic, this isn't technically true because of something called the existential fallacy, but I've never seen the LSAT try to fool a test taker because of it. This is incorrect for a couple of reasons. Fi…
-
@emilycyoung1 said: does it matter either way? Nope, both are equivalent. @emilycyoung1 said: Also are "if BUT only if" and "if AND only if" diagrammed differently or the same? The same.
-
@nnking0407 said: I understand that few means some are, most are not. Right, so using this understanding, "Few A's are B's" is equivalent to "(Some A's are B's) and not(Most A's are B's)". The negation of "Few A's are B's" is "not(Few A's are B's…
-
I was in a similar situation- diagnostic at 168, and already knew most of the stuff covered in the curriculum. I didn't skip, per se, but I did skim/fast-forward through the material I already knew. I also tackled the material covering my weakest se…
-
I, along with quite a few other test takers, brought a backpack/bag with me. We weren't allowed to take them into our testing rooms, but the proctors did collect them for holding in a separate room in the building. We collected them after turning in…
-
Keywords include: "if and only if", "necessary and sufficient", "just in case", "just". Some other connectives can also be expressed equivalently in terms of biconditionals, such as the exclusive-or ("one, but not both").
-
This may be an unpopular opinion here (and feel free to ignore this comment), but I feel like this a bit of an overreaction. It'd be one thing if you were going on vacation after your exam, but is it really worth the money to fly across the country …
-
Why should the proponent of the alternative code care that it's not always reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain the public's confidence? Proponents of the alternative code can happily accept this. For example, maybe there's a ve…
-
At our testing center, they didn't allow us to speak with other test takers during the break. Every time someone would start talking in the hall, a proctor would try to silence the conversation.
-
@Edmond.Dantes said: "when grass clippings are raked up, micronutrients are depleted." I think there's a fork in the road for how we should interpret the consequent of your proposed conditional, and depending on how we interpret your consequent, t…
-
@Edmond.Dantes said: Grass Clips Raked --> Micro Depleted The stimulus doesn't allow us to conclude this. Grass clippings are one way to get micro-nutrients, but the stimulus doesn't say it's the ONLY way. Thus, when the grass clippings are rak…
-
Argument form 6 is INVALID. If there are no turtles and if nothing is named after Italian artists, then both premises are true and the conclusion false. In order for number 6 to be valid, you would need an additional premise: there are some turtles…
-
@dcdcdcdcdc, There are two senses of "unless". There's a weak sense of "unless", which uses the inclusive-or, and there's a strong sense of "unless", which uses the exclusive-or. For LSAT purposes, I've never seen the strong sense show up. If you se…
-
@dcdcdcdcdc, the antecedent and consequent of a conditional must truth-apt (or truth-evaluable, if you prefer that terminology). Similarly, the disjuncts or conjuncts of a disjunction or conjunction or whatever must also be truth-apt. So when you h…
-
@attorneysomerville said: Your argument assumes that "1+1=3" is false without stating that it is false. If you spelled it out fully instead of making that assumption, the atomic proposition would appear twice. You don't need to state that it's fals…
-
I think you're misreading the referential phrasing, but even if we grant that you're not, (E) still doesn't help us. We need to explain why there was a period of time between the brightness increase and the breaking up. Even if "this" refers only to…
-
I believe this is improperly labeled. It should be a necessary assumption question, not a sufficient assumption question. The question stem asks "...which one of the following MUST be assumed?" [emphasis mine] This is also why the negation test wor…
-
@attorneysomerville said: Moving on to the more controversial claim--I can't think of a way to write a conditional or categorical argument in which an atomic proposition only appears once. Can you? I assume by "conditional argument", y…
-
I read all answer choices. Even if you find the answer choice you were anticipating, you could very well have misread the stimulus or made some other kind of error. On the curve-breaker questions, the LSAT writers are banking on you making subtle er…
-
In propositional logic, the symbols are referred to as "sentence symbols". The abstract entities that the sentence symbols represent are called "propositions" or "sentences" (hence the name "propositional"/"sentential logic"). The word "term" is a t…
-
I suspect that you mean something different by "term" than what logicians mean by "term". For the sake of understanding, can you give an example of an argument with at least two terms and point out what exactly the terms are?
-
It seems like a lot of the confusion here arises from an attempt to contort natural language quantifiers, such as "most, many, more than half, finitely many, etc.", into the universal/existential dichotomy. This is a doomed project because the unive…
-
@stepharizona, "Some" and "many" are both existential, but that's not enough to say that they're equivalent. It should be evident that they're not equivalent, for reasons I presented above. Now, for LSAT purposes, it might be the case that the exist…
-
@Edmond.Dantes "Many" is similar to "some" to the extent that it's an existential statement. But that's it. It's clearly **NOT** equivalent to "some". Imagine that of all the people that exist, one person was born with a purple tooth. "Someone was b…