tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post1331501400101903025..comments2024-03-28T05:21:49.590-04:00Comments on LSAT Blog: LSAT Unplugged YouTube / Podcast: Logical Reasoning | Sufficient Assumption (Justify) QuestionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-54093902454256411092013-10-23T22:57:55.040-04:002013-10-23T22:57:55.040-04:00I get the logical relationship between A --> B ...I get the logical relationship between A --> B and C --> B!!!!!!!! :-D Isn't logic fun? Not more than milk and cookies though, especially oreos!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D :-D :-D :-D :-DLorrainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01468505478439131615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-22140310689215678182013-06-05T18:03:06.058-04:002013-06-05T18:03:06.058-04:00Hey,
I am still confused about why one suffici...Hey,<br /><br /> I am still confused about why one sufficient condition becomes the necessary condition and why it can be arbitrarily flipped in Q.16 could it not be the other way? Why does the conclusion's sufficient have to fall within the evidence's sufficient. Is this always the case or can the evidence's sufficient condition fall within the conclusion? Is it basically because the conclusion must follow from the given premises? Is this a rule of logic that I am not getting. Sincerely Sophiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07272639737331674160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-14920894113837921202011-02-13T16:05:46.818-05:002011-02-13T16:05:46.818-05:00Steve.
You stated earlier that you should try to...Steve. <br /><br />You stated earlier that you should try to get the evidence and conclusion to have the same necessary condition. What stumped me on the farmer's question is that I couldn't get both to have the same necessary condition. Is this something we should TRY to do or should we do it always? <br /><br />Also, it seems that to get these questions correct, you would have to diagram them. However, you have mentioned about not diagramming so much. What should I do? With these questions, I need to diagram. However, won't that take up too much time? What should I try to do while practicing, analyzing them without a diagram or creating a diagram quicker?<br /><br />Great blog, by the way!Marshanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-21811115749386517112011-02-10T18:26:10.200-05:002011-02-10T18:26:10.200-05:00Steve-two quick things.
First off, this can'...Steve-two quick things. <br /><br />First off, this can't be true...KAPLAN conflates sufficient assumption questions with necessary assumption questions?!?! Is this real? Am I in the real world or the LSAT world? How could they be so, so stupid? I've seen some explanations from them, and they talk about how an answer choice to a sufficient assumption question has to be necessary to the argument in order for the answer choice to be correct. ?! This is one of the most fundamental issues on the LSAT--necessary/sufficient reasoning, and Kaplan conflates the two like this?! I honestly can't believe it.<br /><br />Secondly, would you say it's worth it to do all of the analysis you talk about breaking down these questions if someone can get them intuitively much easier?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-39415303912024411852010-04-27T15:21:42.702-04:002010-04-27T15:21:42.702-04:00Jeff,
Glad you're enjoying the blog!
You'...Jeff,<br /><br />Glad you're enjoying the blog!<br /><br />You're absolutely right - it's also possible to manipulate to get the sufficient conditions the same and then link the necessary conditions (from necessary of the evidence to the necessary of the conclusion).<br /><br />I just did it the other way above because of how those particular questions work. <br /><br />Check out section 6 of <a href="http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/sufficient-assumption-questions-tips.html" rel="nofollow">Sufficient Assumption Questions | Tips and Categorization</a> for more on that.<br /><br />In other words, it does sometimes work out more easily when you manipulate to get the same necessary.Steve Schwartzhttp://lsatblog.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-8450383120077268102010-04-27T15:12:52.771-04:002010-04-27T15:12:52.771-04:00Hey Steve. Great job on the blog you should consid...Hey Steve. Great job on the blog you should consider making your own prep course ha. Anyways, looking at the chordate example, could you also write out the statements like this:<br /><br />Ev: If P --> T --> not C<br />Con: If P --> not H<br /><br />And then just focus on linking up the end necessary conditions? So: If not C --> not H. <br /><br />It seems like you could write out a lot of these formal logic suff assumption questions by either manipulating the statements to get the same necessary conditions, or the same sufficient conditions, and then just link up the mismatched terms? <br /><br />Do you preach this way (manipulate to get the same necessary over sufficient) because it often leads to the right answer without having to take the contrapositive to find it?<br /><br />God this is such a better way to explain it. Why do test prep companies screw up a test that is really incredibly straightforward?Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-42807901278487669822010-02-28T19:14:47.274-05:002010-02-28T19:14:47.274-05:00I usually don't explain specific LSAT question...I usually don't explain specific LSAT questions on the blog for a variety of reasons. Sorry. <br /><br />However, I already explained that one in <a href="http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/hardest-lsat-logical-reasoning.html" rel="nofollow">5 Hardest LSAT Logical Reasoning Questions</a>.<br /><br />Take care!Steve Schwartzhttp://lsatblog.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-14409582472004801082010-02-27T23:53:24.882-05:002010-02-27T23:53:24.882-05:00Hi,
I have a question on the LSAT practice test #...Hi,<br /><br />I have a question on the LSAT practice test # 30, section 2, question 22. The answer in the practice test indicates it is 'e'. However, I cannot understand why that is so, I would think the answer is 'a'. Please explain this to me, as I am really confused.<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-19982633473997275612009-11-27T16:21:32.847-05:002009-11-27T16:21:32.847-05:00I think that I'm understanding your explanatio...I think that I'm understanding your explanations of the examples. However, to me some of these assumptions seem to be necessary in order for the conclusion to be drawn, not just sufficient. For instance, in the A --->B and C --->B example that you used, why is C ---> A sufficient, instead of necessary? It seems necessary to me...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-86210051337572612602009-11-16T05:47:54.828-05:002009-11-16T05:47:54.828-05:00You wouldn't believe how valuable this post is...You wouldn't believe how valuable this post is until you read it after reading logical reasoning bible and the Master the LSAT book. None mention "match the necessary conditions" or make equating so simple. Much appreciated and your blog is fantastic. Keep posting and your credibility will soar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-66304062341742577102009-11-11T07:58:36.894-05:002009-11-11T07:58:36.894-05:00HI steve, this sufficient assumption question has ...HI steve, this sufficient assumption question has me tripped up. Its #17, section two,from the june 2004 lsat(prep test 43)<br /><br />please help with the diagramming.<br />no small countries....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-23982047330945941092009-10-22T01:10:52.919-04:002009-10-22T01:10:52.919-04:00Hi Steve,
A friend of mine took an Logic class in...Hi Steve,<br /><br />A friend of mine took an Logic class in college a few years ago and said it was really helpful with translating sentences into conditionals, formal logic chains and their contrapositives. I am now preparing for the LSAT. Do you recommend taking a Logic class in order to build a solid foundation for studying?<br />ThanksUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09653942444213404044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10294095.post-25059222095519819242009-10-18T04:10:06.488-04:002009-10-18T04:10:06.488-04:00Could you post assumptions(not justify, the origin...Could you post assumptions(not justify, the original assumptions)? I know.. I am already getting lots of helpful/useful information for free.. But since I suck so bad in assumptions, kinda feeling desparate..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com