Sentence stringlengths 0 4.66k | video_title stringlengths 26 111 |
|---|---|
If rentals have declined, that kind of sounds like interest in video games is going down. That would support his conclusion that we're not going to sell as many games in the very near future. C actually provides a difference about the future. In the near future, we will actually have entirely new entertainment options.... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
In the near future, we will actually have entirely new entertainment options. Okay, well, that means that we're not going to want to play video games as much. So that helps the author. Answer choice D also gives us some information about the near future. We actually could have made an objection that if there are a lot ... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Answer choice D also gives us some information about the near future. We actually could have made an objection that if there are a lot more types of video games in the near future, maybe that will encourage buying. However, this is saying nothing that strong. It's just saying they're unlikely to decrease. It doesn't in... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It's just saying they're unlikely to decrease. It doesn't in any way say that they are going to increase. Once again, the correct answer attacked an assumption that was what was true historically will still be true, that most of the video games will be sold to 13 to 16 year olds. And E attacks that by saying, no, the d... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And E attacks that by saying, no, the demographics are changing. Let's try a paradox question. Pause the recording and unpause when you've got your answer. Welcome back. With paradox questions, we're usually getting some tension, a background fact that leads to a surprising fact. The background fact in the first senten... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So their plan really backfired. We need to know why. Something else had to change. Where is this more fat coming from if they're eating half as much red meat? So we know there has to be something different between before they were on this diet and the world in which they are on this diet that would explain how they're ... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Where is this more fat coming from if they're eating half as much red meat? So we know there has to be something different between before they were on this diet and the world in which they are on this diet that would explain how they're getting more fat. We go to these answers thinking tell me what else has changed abo... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
The correct answer D tells us about these dieters. People that are eating less red meat tend to start eating more cheese, more baked goods, and that's what's changed that causes more fat. They're even richer in fat than meat. Our correct answer gives us the difference we needed. We look at the wrong answers. Some of th... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Our correct answer gives us the difference we needed. We look at the wrong answers. Some of them are going to be quick to get rid of because they really don't even tell us something new about these dieters. A is telling us that over the past two decades there's more people in the reduced red meat category than in the d... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
A is telling us that over the past two decades there's more people in the reduced red meat category than in the didn't reduce. We don't care. We just want to know about in the last two decades why are the people who did reduce red meat having more fat show up in their diet. Choice B just digs into why people are consum... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Choice B just digs into why people are consuming less meat but we don't care about that we care about how come they're having more fat. This doesn't tell us anything that has changed for them that would result in more fat. C at least is talking about the people, the people who are reducing their consumption of red meat... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
We need a way that they're different from before. C is saying oh they consume just as many foods high in fat whereas our correct answer D was saying oh no once they get off meat they go up in the cheese and baked good department. Choice E is an incredibly weakly worded idea. Slightly less fat than previously thought. S... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Slightly less fat than previously thought. Slightly less sometimes it might. Weak language like that is almost never correct on paradox strengthen or weaken. These are asking us which answer if true does the most has the most impact. No matter what E does not in any way explain something that's different about these di... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
These are asking us which answer if true does the most has the most impact. No matter what E does not in any way explain something that's different about these dieters that would explain why they have higher fat than before. Let's try one last question real quick. Pause the recording. Unpause it when you're ready to he... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Pause the recording. Unpause it when you're ready to hear about it. Welcome back. It's another flaw question. To strike or not to strike this author's says we should not strike. So presumably he has laid out all the pros and cons and compared them to each other right? | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
It's another flaw question. To strike or not to strike this author's says we should not strike. So presumably he has laid out all the pros and cons and compared them to each other right? Well not really. He listed some of the disadvantages. He said well one con is it would cut into our strike fund although what else ar... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Well not really. He listed some of the disadvantages. He said well one con is it would cut into our strike fund although what else are you saving your strike fund for one might ask. And then he also said it's gonna lead to a steep fine which is gonna be a major financial loss. Okay well if we were gonna try to argue th... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
And then he also said it's gonna lead to a steep fine which is gonna be a major financial loss. Okay well if we were gonna try to argue that we should strike we would need to emphasize some good things like maybe it gives us leverage and we'll be able to fight for better wages better working conditions. The correct ans... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
What about the positives? What if the pros outweigh the cons? If we look at the other answers A is saying you know you can have a financial loss different ways it doesn't have to be a fine. Okay well that's not weakening anything. A weakened answer would be a reason that we should have the strike. A is not giving us th... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Okay well that's not weakening anything. A weakened answer would be a reason that we should have the strike. A is not giving us that. B is asking for a precise definition of major loss. We never need to have precise measurements or definitions we're analyzing logic. D is accusing the author of assuming something very e... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
B is asking for a precise definition of major loss. We never need to have precise measurements or definitions we're analyzing logic. D is accusing the author of assuming something very extreme that the number one factor in bargaining position is financial strength. The author does not commit herself to that strong assu... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
The author does not commit herself to that strong assumption. E is saying that the author assumes there will someday be a better time to strike but she doesn't need that assumption if you negate that and say there will never be a better time that doesn't hurt anything in her argument. You can say we shouldn't drink poi... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
As you can see there's a ton of different comparisons we'll see. A lot of times we'll be comparing time frames like past to present or present to future if we're making a prediction. A lot of times we'll be comparing two different groups or situations. We might be making a choice between two things to strike or not to ... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
We might be making a choice between two things to strike or not to strike. We might be evaluating a plan versus no plan. The world where we have these motivational posters versus the world where we don't. We might be comparing a part versus its whole. A sample versus a broader group that we are generalizing about. We m... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
We might be comparing a part versus its whole. A sample versus a broader group that we are generalizing about. We might be comparing relative versus absolute, shorter versus short, or motivated versus more motivated. We might be comparing percent versus number. When we're trying to strengthen things that are based on c... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
We might be comparing percent versus number. When we're trying to strengthen things that are based on comparisons we'll generally be looking for more similarity. We want to make sure these two things are fair to compare. And when we're completing an analogy we know they're fair to compare and so we're trying to spell o... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
And when we're completing an analogy we know they're fair to compare and so we're trying to spell out what is the second half of that comparison. When we're weakening an argument we'll be looking for ways to drive a wedge between those two things being compared. We want to hear that there's some way in which they're me... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
And many times when we're trying to explain a paradox we're looking for some meaningful difference that would account for the surprising dissimilarity we see. On assumption questions it can go either way. Sometimes the author will be assuming a similarity that was never articulated and other times she'll be assuming so... | Comparison LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Welcome to a little lesson on conditional logic. We want to talk about what a conditional statement does and doesn't tell us. We want to get familiar with some of the most popular keywords that indicate conditional logic. And then we want to do a little practice trying to diagram sentences as conditional statements. A ... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And then we want to do a little practice trying to diagram sentences as conditional statements. A conditional statement has an arrow and you read it as if the thing on the left is true, then the thing on the right is true. If you're in New York City, then you're in the USA. The arrow is certainty. So anytime we write o... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The arrow is certainty. So anytime we write one of these rules, we trust it. If the left side is true, it must be that the right side is also true. When the sufficient condition is met, the left side is triggered and then the outcome necessarily follows. If Linda's in New York City, can we make any inferences from this... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
When the sufficient condition is met, the left side is triggered and then the outcome necessarily follows. If Linda's in New York City, can we make any inferences from this rule about whether or not she's in the USA? Sure, if she's in New York City, yes, she's definitely in the USA. If Joe isn't in New York City, does ... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If Joe isn't in New York City, does this rule allow us to make any inferences about whether or not he's in the USA? Of course not. He might be in the USA, he might not. Maybe he's in Paris, maybe he's in Miami. The important thing is this idea that when you learn that the trigger isn't applicable, he's not in New York ... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Maybe he's in Paris, maybe he's in Miami. The important thing is this idea that when you learn that the trigger isn't applicable, he's not in New York City, then the rule just disappears. There's no way to break that rule. The rule has no power over us. It also doesn't tell us anything. What if we learn that Alice is i... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The rule has no power over us. It also doesn't tell us anything. What if we learn that Alice is in the USA? Does this rule allow us to conclude whether or not she's in New York City? No. I mean, maybe she is, maybe she's in San Francisco. | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Does this rule allow us to conclude whether or not she's in New York City? No. I mean, maybe she is, maybe she's in San Francisco. What's very tempting to students is when we find out the right side is true, we want to assume, okay, well, so does that mean the left side is true? She's in New York City. We got to resist... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
What's very tempting to students is when we find out the right side is true, we want to assume, okay, well, so does that mean the left side is true? She's in New York City. We got to resist that temptation. Don't read conditionals backwards. You're running straight into the head of an arrow. So painful and also illogic... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Don't read conditionals backwards. You're running straight into the head of an arrow. So painful and also illogical. On flaw questions, a lot of LSAT authors are going to make this mistake. They're going to present a rule, say that the right side is happening, and then think that that proves that the left side is happe... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
On flaw questions, a lot of LSAT authors are going to make this mistake. They're going to present a rule, say that the right side is happening, and then think that that proves that the left side is happening, and that's called confusing the necessary and the sufficient. What if we say that Dave is not in the USA? Does ... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Does this rule tell us anything about whether or not he's in New York City? Yeah, it should. If he's not in the USA, he's definitely not in New York City. So a conditional statement has a sufficient on the left and a necessary on the right. The only time we can use these rules is if we know the sufficient is true or if... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So a conditional statement has a sufficient on the left and a necessary on the right. The only time we can use these rules is if we know the sufficient is true or if we know the necessary is not true. There's a term we're going to hear a million times called the contrapositive. The contrapositive says when the outcome ... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The contrapositive says when the outcome isn't true, I guess the trigger isn't true. If you're not in the USA, then you obviously can't be in New York City. A conditional statement and its contrapositive are like two sides of the same coin. You can really even picture a contrapositive like a flip of the coin where we f... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
You can really even picture a contrapositive like a flip of the coin where we flip this upside down and now we're going from upside down right to upside down left. But what do we mean by upside down? We mean we've flipped the truth value. We've either gone from true to false or false to true. So a contrapositive is say... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We've either gone from true to false or false to true. So a contrapositive is saying if you're not the right side, you're not the left side. LSAT is primarily presenting us with conditional logic to test whether or not we're capable of seeing contrapositive logic. They're also trying to make sure that we don't get slop... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
They're also trying to make sure that we don't get sloppy and stumble into illegal moves where you go from right to left or where you assume if the trigger doesn't apply, then the outcome doesn't apply. There's one last rule. In this conditional statement, I have the word and on the trigger. If A and B are both true, t... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If A and B are both true, that triggers the rule and tells me C. When we write the contrapositive, our job is to basically flip the truth value of everything. So we start with upside down right side. If not C, then not A. And what's critical here is that when we're flipping truth values, and turns into or. Similarly, i... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And what's critical here is that when we're flipping truth values, and turns into or. Similarly, if we had had an or, it would turn into and. Try one of these on your own for a second. Pause the recording. Think about what the contrapositive of this rule would look like. When we write the contrapositive, we start if th... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Pause the recording. Think about what the contrapositive of this rule would look like. When we write the contrapositive, we start if the right side were not true. If I flip all the truth values of the right side. So yes, Y becomes not Y or becomes and and not Z becomes yes, Z. And that would prove the right side, not X... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If I flip all the truth values of the right side. So yes, Y becomes not Y or becomes and and not Z becomes yes, Z. And that would prove the right side, not X. So when you're flipping truth values, and transforms into or, or transforms into and. So what are we going to be doing with all these conditional statements? Wel... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So when you're flipping truth values, and transforms into or, or transforms into and. So what are we going to be doing with all these conditional statements? Well, there's two main activities. We're often going to be chaining conditionals together, or we're going to be getting a conditional rule and then triggering tha... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We're often going to be chaining conditionals together, or we're going to be getting a conditional rule and then triggering that rule with a fact and deriving some other factual inference. But sometimes when we're working with conditional logic, we're deriving another conditional logic statement. Other times we'll be w... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Given these three conditional statements, what sort of new conditional could we infer? Well, we could infer that if A then D, or by contrapositive, if not D, then not A. When you have more than one conditional, you ask yourself, do these connect? Do they chain together? And these three conditionals we were given give u... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Do they chain together? And these three conditionals we were given give us this cool chain, A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D. We can contrapose entire chains and start from the back and go, all right, so if not D, not C, not B, not A. Now LSAT normally rewards our ability to connect the beginning of the chain t... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So it's also valid to derive that A leads to C, B leads to D, not D leads to not B, not C leads to not A. Here we've got a mixture of conditionals and facts. So we have a rule that says if A is true, then at least one of B or C must be true. And then we have a fact that's telling you, okay, yeah, A is true. Also a fact... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And then we have a fact that's telling you, okay, yeah, A is true. Also a fact saying C is not true. So what's the factual inference we can derive? We would know that B is true. A triggers that rule, and then at least one of those two things, B or C, has to be the outcome. Since we already know it can't be C, it must b... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We would know that B is true. A triggers that rule, and then at least one of those two things, B or C, has to be the outcome. Since we already know it can't be C, it must be B. Here's an even more complex one. Pause the recording and think, what would go in that question mark? What could we infer if B is true? | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Here's an even more complex one. Pause the recording and think, what would go in that question mark? What could we infer if B is true? We could infer that if B, then D. We could have also inferred if B, then C, but this one would be more likely what they would be testing. Because those first two conditionals chain toge... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We could infer that if B, then D. We could have also inferred if B, then C, but this one would be more likely what they would be testing. Because those first two conditionals chain together, they say if A and B are both true, then you get C, and if you get C, you get D. Then we're provided the fact that A is happening.... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
That's why our conditional is saying if we add B, then we would get C and D. You just did it. You just mastered conditional logic, basically. Now what we got to do is get good at hearing when it's actually being tested, and that comes down to a lot of keywords. Conditional logic appears in any sentence that provides ce... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Conditional logic appears in any sentence that provides certainty. So you're going to see that in different contexts. You might have rules or principles like if A, then B. Universal categorical statements, all As are B. Causal guarantees, where this thing always leads to that thing. And then requirements. This thing re... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Universal categorical statements, all As are B. Causal guarantees, where this thing always leads to that thing. And then requirements. This thing requires that thing. It's very important that you learn to read a conditional statement as the left side requires the right side. Consider the statements like you can't get i... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It's very important that you learn to read a conditional statement as the left side requires the right side. Consider the statements like you can't get into Yale without a great LSAT score, and you must study hard if you want to get a great LSAT score. Now try to put that into this thing requires that thing language. G... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Getting into Yale requires a great LSAT score. Having a great LSAT score requires studying hard. That allows us to chain together requirements so that we can synthesize and say, oh, okay, so getting into Yale requires that I study hard. Go ahead and pause the recording and look through these sentences. All of these sen... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Go ahead and pause the recording and look through these sentences. All of these sentences would still be diagrammed the way you see at the top. If A, then B. All right. So as you see, there's a lot of keywords in here that we want to get used to that will signify, hey, conditional logic is being tested. Here's a list o... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
All right. So as you see, there's a lot of keywords in here that we want to get used to that will signify, hey, conditional logic is being tested. Here's a list of the main conditional keywords. Anytime you see any of the words in the left side column, you'll put the idea attached to that keyword on the left of the arr... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Anytime you see any of the words in the left side column, you'll put the idea attached to that keyword on the left of the arrow. And when you see any of the words in the right column, you'll take the idea that's attached to that word and put it on the right side of the arrow. It's a lot of words to memorize, but we can... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We've got words that signify rules. We've got a bunch of universal terms, some guarantees, and a lot of words that mean this thing requires that thing. There's a lot of words listed there that are requirements, and there are even more words we're not listing. So with requirements, the most important thing is that you m... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So with requirements, the most important thing is that you memorize the feel of, okay, if they're telling me one thing's required, the required thing goes on the right. There's a few words here that we need to follow up on because they actually have a little bit of a trick to them. If we get a no statement, like no cam... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
But we got to think about what that rule is saying. If something isn't a camel, then I'm sure it attends law school. That doesn't seem right. Try it the other way. If something attends law school, then I'm sure it's not a camel. Yes, that seems right. | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Try it the other way. If something attends law school, then I'm sure it's not a camel. Yes, that seems right. So what's going on with these no statements? Well, one way to think about how to symbolize it correctly would be to say, it looks like it goes backwards, like attend law school leads to no camel. That's true. | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So what's going on with these no statements? Well, one way to think about how to symbolize it correctly would be to say, it looks like it goes backwards, like attend law school leads to no camel. That's true. You can use that methodology if you'd like to. What's the contrapositive to our rule? It would be if you are a ... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
You can use that methodology if you'd like to. What's the contrapositive to our rule? It would be if you are a camel, you don't attend law school. A different way to deal with no statements is to think to yourself, okay, I know that when I see no, the no actually applies to the second part of the sentence. So it's real... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
A different way to deal with no statements is to think to yourself, okay, I know that when I see no, the no actually applies to the second part of the sentence. So it's really if camel, then no attend law school. That's how I want to read it. We can also think about switching from a negative to a positive. No camels at... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We can also think about switching from a negative to a positive. No camels attend means the same as all camels don't attend. There are a few negative to positive translations we want to make. The most important one is this conditional one. If we see no A's are B, that turns into all A's are not B. The negative is modif... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The most important one is this conditional one. If we see no A's are B, that turns into all A's are not B. The negative is modifying the second idea. And that's true for all these negative to positive translations. If we're told that few A's are B, we turn that into most A's are not B. Not all A's are B, we turn that i... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And that's true for all these negative to positive translations. If we're told that few A's are B, we turn that into most A's are not B. Not all A's are B, we turn that into some A's are not B. Whenever I see a negative, I translate it into positive because it's much easier for our brains to understand these facts when... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Whenever I see a negative, I translate it into positive because it's much easier for our brains to understand these facts when they're presented in positive form. So when we see no, the attached idea does go on the left side of the arrow, but you need to apply the no to the second half of the sentence. Camels goes on t... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Or clean it up by rewriting it as a positive. No camels are lawyers is the same as all camels are not lawyers. Unless is a really important word. If, only if, and unless are the three most frequently used words up here. Anything attached to if goes on the left of the arrow. Anything that comes after only if goes on the... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If, only if, and unless are the three most frequently used words up here. Anything attached to if goes on the left of the arrow. Anything that comes after only if goes on the right of the arrow. Unless, until, and without are a little bit weirder. We need to do an if not translation or we need to think about what's the... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Unless, until, and without are a little bit weirder. We need to do an if not translation or we need to think about what's the required thing. Consider this sentence. Eddie can't go to Legoland until he feeds his rabbit. If I see any of these three words, I'll start thinking, okay, I know I can replace until with if not... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Eddie can't go to Legoland until he feeds his rabbit. If I see any of these three words, I'll start thinking, okay, I know I can replace until with if not. If not feeds rabbit, can't go to Legoland. The other option I have is to think through requirement vision. Okay, what's required here in this story? Okay, well, his... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The other option I have is to think through requirement vision. Okay, what's required here in this story? Okay, well, his parents are saying it's required that you feed your rabbit. So feed rabbit goes on the right, required on the right. We can read this statement as Legoland requires that he feed his rabbit. Remember... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So feed rabbit goes on the right, required on the right. We can read this statement as Legoland requires that he feed his rabbit. Remember the original if not formulation would give us the contrapositive. If not feed rabbit, then not Legoland. Here's another example. Without Rashida's positive attitude, this would have... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If not feed rabbit, then not Legoland. Here's another example. Without Rashida's positive attitude, this would have been a disaster. Let's translate this. We can use if not, and that'll look like if not positive attitude, then disaster. Or we can try to hear it as a requirement. | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Let's translate this. We can use if not, and that'll look like if not positive attitude, then disaster. Or we can try to hear it as a requirement. All right, what was, what was needed? What was required? Oh, well, we needed Rashida's positive attitude. | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
All right, what was, what was needed? What was required? Oh, well, we needed Rashida's positive attitude. That's going on the right side. We needed it in order to avoid disaster. Averting disaster required her positive attitude. | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
That's going on the right side. We needed it in order to avoid disaster. Averting disaster required her positive attitude. The first way we did it was if not positive attitude, then disaster, which is the contrapositive of what we just came up with. One last one. Happiness is never achieved unless love or passion is pr... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The first way we did it was if not positive attitude, then disaster, which is the contrapositive of what we just came up with. One last one. Happiness is never achieved unless love or passion is present. All right, unless my if not buddy, what if I put a if not in here? So if not love or passion present, then no happin... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
All right, unless my if not buddy, what if I put a if not in here? So if not love or passion present, then no happiness. I have to be careful here and put parentheses because this is a complex idea. It's negating the idea of love or passion. You're saying it's not the case that love or passion is present, which means b... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It's negating the idea of love or passion. You're saying it's not the case that love or passion is present, which means both of them are absent. There's not love and there's not passion. But if we're ever negating a complex idea with and or or, we got to remember we're flipping truth values. And so that means or become... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
But if we're ever negating a complex idea with and or or, we got to remember we're flipping truth values. And so that means or becomes and and becomes or. What does the requirement sound like? Well, it's saying happiness requires at least love or passion. So anytime we see these three words, we can either choose to rep... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Well, it's saying happiness requires at least love or passion. So anytime we see these three words, we can either choose to replace it with if not and put the attached idea on the left side, but negated. We just have to watch out if it's a complex idea. Negating involves flipping and and or. Or we can try to think thro... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Negating involves flipping and and or. Or we can try to think through the logic of which thing is required. I know I put that on the right side of the arrow. When I see the word no, I can put the attached idea on the left side of the arrow, but I have to negate the thing on the right side. Similarly, when I see unless,... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
When I see the word no, I can put the attached idea on the left side of the arrow, but I have to negate the thing on the right side. Similarly, when I see unless, until or without, I can put that idea on the right side, but I need to negate the left side. There's one other set of keywords we need to discuss and it's ca... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It basically combines a left side and a right side idea. So if and only if, then and only then, when and only when, and even otherwise we'll see as a way to create a biconditional. The words if means put it on the left. The word only if means put it on the right. So when we say if and only if, it's saying put it on the... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The word only if means put it on the right. So when we say if and only if, it's saying put it on the left and put it on the right. If we read, Jeff gets to take a vacation if but only if Trixie gets a promotion. If means put it on the left, so we would put promotion on the left, vacation on the right. Only if though me... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If means put it on the left, so we would put promotion on the left, vacation on the right. Only if though means put it on the right, so we should be putting promotion on the right and putting vacation on the left. And of course, both things are correct. A promotion implies a vacation, a vacation implies a promotion. So... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
A promotion implies a vacation, a vacation implies a promotion. So what we do with biconditionals is we often can use a double-sided arrow to just indicate that these ideas go in both directions. When we write a contrapositive, we don't really need to switch the order because the arrow goes in both directions, so it do... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So when you see wording like if and only if, then and only then, you'll need to decide for yourself, do I want to do this as a couple two-sided conditionals or do I want to just write it as an either or? Personally, I prefer the either or option, but a lot of other people use the arrows. Here's an example of how otherw... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We're saying Jeff will take a vacation if he wins the lottery. So if lottery, that's going on the left, then vacation. The otherwise is saying if he doesn't win the lottery, he won't take a vacation. That looks like an illegal opposite, but we're not making an illegal inference. We were actually given two separate cond... | Conditional Logic LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.