Lesson 2: LSAT Logic and Arguments

[@iqrasangi.]

Starting my LSAT prep now. I'm freaking out about being so late, but also thankful to have found your channel. May we all succeed!d!

[@GriotXArt]

Its okay. Yoga and God has helped my anxiety *1000 percent

[@Yona0Yona]

I am starting my LSAT prep and was watching your old playlist, so happy to see that there is an updated version since I will be taking the version post-August-2023! Thank you for thinking of us youtube learners :D

[@nemsa_g]

It's all about the Conclusion. 1. Find the Conclusion of the passage. 2. Understand what in the passage helps or hinders that Conclusion.

[@KarlaFendi]

I graduated with my BS in chemistry and ive done a complete switch into going to law school. Just started my LSAT prep as well 🎉

[@jackxiang3844]

hahaha I'm chembio BS going into senior year and just started as well

[@AnoN-d4k]

Environmental Science BS in undergrad. Landed here by happy accident, a bit of exposure, and a few good words from Dr. Temple Grandin. Good luck to all my fellow autistic verbal processors hoping to do some good in the world, and good luck to you too OP. I hope you get/got what you want(ed) and are doing well.

[@johns41]

Biochemistry undergrad & 4 years in the field working - feel like this is my real calling. Starting now!

[@avsusky]

What an adorable and friendly teacher, thank you :)

[@lauren1675]

Starting my LSAT studying. Thank you so much for this series!

[@El_LA_Lobo]

I'll be standing by for the website :( but thank you very much for the free series.

[@JoshuaOrtiz-s6e]

Thank you for making this complicated content so easy to comprehend. Your videos are much appreicated!

[@br0wnskinsheila250]

I’m so grateful for you and this series! Thank you🙏🏾

[@THEHOURISRIPE]

This was so good. I really love how you simplified the explanation of the complex language. Simple, but did wonders for me moving forward. This lesson as whole also increased my confidence for drill sets and practice tests. Even though theres still room for improvement. I feel like I know what I am doing which is half the battle. lol

[@elmenchoUSA]

Fr I even took the Kaplan course and literallt this explains stuff in a slower pace and way better😢

[@SFuNk24]

11:53 Ah you got me. I wanted to argue that it should be "athletes need" because "they" is a pronoun that is standing in for the athletes. If you swapped "talented athletes" with "they" the sentence still works. ("although they typically follow" ; "athletes need") This is why I need this haha I am so glad I found this playlist. Thanks and good luck to everyone!

[@ofizzy21]

I definetly shouted " athletes rest!" thinking I was right smh lol. Glad to know I wasnt alone bro

[@danielmeyer51]

I really appreciate you sharing this knowledge to prepare us. Very thankful!

[@bomaebenezer2979]

I still have a year before taking the test, but I feel like I need all the time I can get. I'm glad that this was the first video I watched.

[@magiccookbook86]

I have at least 4 years if I do not do an undergraduate degree but I'm slow at studies, so it's never too early for me to start, however, it will be difficult for me to keep up with all the changes in the future.

[@cdog1684]

when the the website be up and running?!?! i'm eager to practice!!

[@robertworthington6592]

When will your training platform be up and running. I am watching these videos and prepping for the LSAT. I am hoping the use of Lawhub and this will help.

[@bbsmith915]

Great content!: 28:38 has error where the left column should have the header as conclusion signals. Maybe even a third column should be included where they overlap ;). Thank you for the videos!

[@prateekdevulpally3964]

I recieved a perfect MCAT and LSAT score!

[@akolyte22]

graduated with my masters in physics, looking to pivot to law and started putting together an LSAT study plan

[@buckeye-pe6df]

Do you want a cookie?

[@sharleahwilliams9882]

Wait. There are no more logic games on the LSAT?

[@buckeye-pe6df]

No.

[@khaledbostani90901]

Thank you!

[@simrank8262]

What is the purpose of the "so,what" tool? From my understanding, its to use to distinguish the conclusion/support relation between two claims?

[@familyman650]

Thank you for the lesson! But would you please tell me what book I have to buy for homework?

[@sheritatillman779]

Thank you .

[@Aqualchemy]

Godsend. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@amariglover1445]

Thank you so much!!!

[@justineowusu]

very helpful video, thank you!

[@9aSu3]

Thank you for this training tool. When will you have the Insight LSAT website up? I am looking forward to integrating these videos and the website together.

[@springtempz]

thank you!

[@sylwiacavalcant8800]

Great video. Thank you. I think there is a mistake in Practice Set #1. Only those who have registered can attend. The if-then statement should be: "If X is registered, then X can attend."

[@anirbanmukherjee5240]

Only X can Y means X is necessary for Y. However, it does not mean X is sufficient for Y. For instance, only those who are on Earth are in the US. That does not mean anyone on Earth is in the US. It means ~Earth --> ~US (those who are not on Earth are not in the US) and US --> Earth (those who are in the US are on Earth). The word "only" is very important. It can make a sufficient condition into a necessary condition. Only if is similar in that whereas if implies a sufficient condition (trigger), only if implies a necessary condition (the condition that must be true if the trigger is true).

[@bonbonmorgs]

@@anirbanmukherjee5240what if for the if then I got “if X can attend, X must have registered” and for the contra I got “if X did not register, then X cannot attend”? I get the two mixed up. I understand that they’re the inverse of one another essentially, but I don’t understand why they are placed in the category that they’re placed in.

[@bonbonmorgs]

I keep getting the if then & contrapositives mixed up. For example, on the “only those who have registered can attend,” I got the if then as “if X can attend, X must have registered,” and the contrapositive as “If X did not register, then X cannot attend.”

[@chrisdemopolis2245]

This is where I am as well. Are you currently just starting out?

[@officiallypaula510]

Thanks for sharing

[@svensnation2122]

42:50 HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU DON'T EAT YER MEAT

[@jakevillaret]

How do we know you ONLY go to the library when it rains? Or am I overthinking it?

[@Chaos.Co-ordinator]

I think yes, you’re overthinking it. I’m pretty sure that conditionals have to be excepted as true on the LSAT. The LSAT requires NO outside info.

[@flacan2020]

@@Chaos.Co-ordinator I thought same thing and posted before I saw this

[@thomaslundy6323]

For that last trick question I actually did find a conditional in it. If X is here(this location), then X has one trick If H -> T If X does not have one trick, then X is not here if ~T -> ~H

[@TannaCoolstuff]

Where is the homework from? In what book or resource can I find the homework questions?!

[@Alatchakra]

What software you used to create such videos. can you please share.

[@flacan2020]

I disagree with albert and the libray, because you've excluded the possibility that albert can go to the library at other times. Obviously he goes when it does rain, but you did not say that's the only time he goes.

[@abellabarbie]

Think of the Truth Table, T -->F is always false. But if ? --> T can mean the ? Could be either true or false. But if Albert is not in the library, it is T -->F, which is always false and impossible. Albert could go at other times or ?-->T, so the video is right. It only discusses ? -->F. If albert is not there in that universe, then it is not raining. If albert were still there, we could not definitively conclude it was raining

[@mariakelly323]

Does the wording in the if then have to be written exactly as shown? What if it's written a bit different but the symbolic is correct?

[@1011i]

Sick asf

[@magiccookbook86]

‼‼SOMEONE HELP WITH MY DOUBT, PLEASE‼‼ 32:54 but the answer to "Johnston is a dishonest person. Why should I believe that?" would be "because Johnston never pays his tax returns".. this is also a conclusion from the sceptic's perspective. Also, "You should not vote for Johnston. Why should I believe that?" can be answered by "Because johnston never pays his tax returns" So if both these statements have the same reason, how are both of them not conclusions? CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE CLEAR THIS UP? I am so sorry but another doubt: Socrates is a man, so Socrates is mortal. if they ask what's the assumption can the assumption be "All men are mortal"?? because it's not really an assumption, it's a universal fact

[@simrank8262]

I recommend re-watching that section. The MAIN conclusion is "You should not vote for Johnston." You should not vote for Johnston probably does not show a strong support to the reasoning of "he never releases his tax papers" .. In the support structure visual ladder he drew, he shows that because Johnston doesn't release his tax returns, this supports the intermediate conclusion of "Johnston is a dishonest person." Simply not voting for someone cannot be reason enough to "he doesn't return his tax papers" when we only look at these two statements. HOWEVER... Johnston's dishonesty logically makes sense because he refuses to release sensitive tax papers. In this case, the conclusion+support makes sense, whereas in the second (not voting+because he doesn't pay tax returns) is us assuming what we established in the previous example (dishonesty+refusing to release his tax papers). If another claim answers our question with this tool, then it's more than likely a conclusion not an intermediate conclusion. The key is this example is understanding how main and intermediate conclusions work. I hope this makes sense! I'm in the beginning steps of my prep, so still learning!

[@christellapayne2520]

I am trying to understand the use of "only" and "only if" in logical statements. Specifically, I am confused about why the contrapositive of the original statement is treated as the equivalent original statement and vice versa. In logical terms, "only" introduces a necessary condition. This means that the part following "only" is required for the statement to be true. For example, take the statement: "Only those who have registered can attend." The word "only" introduces a necessary condition. Therefore, it should be written as A→R (If someone can attend, then they must have registered) and the contrapositive would be ¬R→¬A (If someone has not registered, then they cannot attend). Additionally, I want to confirm that the rules are the same for "only if." "Only if" also introduces a necessary condition, similar to "only". For instance, in the statement: "We can go on vacation only if we save money." The phrase "only if" introduces a necessary condition. Thus, it should be symbolized as V→S (If we can go on vacation, then we must have saved money) and the contrapositive would be ¬S→¬V (If we have not saved money, then we cannot go on vacation). I was taught that the part after "only" or "only if" is always the necessary condition and not the trigger or sufficient condition. The contrapositive will then follow logically by negating and reversing the original statement. Where are the discrepancies coming from?

[@reliancedevelopment9810]

You are assuming that if they didn't attend then they didn't register. or They could have not registered and still attended. If and only if they register they can attend fits your contrapositive ¬R→¬A

[@elizabethnnakwue1558]

Hi Christell, can we be study buddies?

[@ProGymReels]

Hi, I put my email in and have yet to receive any mail as of two days now.

[@summagami4370]

23:37

[@yrnleo4924]

YEEEEEEEEEEEE

[@uraddiictOnx3]

52:34

[@nicolasbuhtoiarov9268]

The “only” statements u keep Changing the order of the if then statements. Makes it super confusing

[@bubbygold7234]

34:40 meme for the win

[@junyang7514]

I just finished listening to a Cartoon movie. Hope to support your programs.

[@onepiecegotmeinlove691]

Me starting my LSAT prep as a first year ubdergraduate in ny fall semester 🙃

[@kierrarolle9568]

I’m starting as a graduate taking a gap year lol 😊

[@abandonallhope.1040]

I remember people telling me over and over logic games is easy to get minus 0 and i never got minus 0 even drilling all day so good riddance lg gone

[@marishahinyan7963]

idk about LSAT and how I'll do on it but looks like I have a big fat crush on bro

[@crispfriars]

Did bro just say no logic games???

[@maryanngambrah1963]

Yeah they removed them from the LSAT so moving forward it's just logical reasoning and reading comprehension and then the writing piece that you get either before you take the LSAT or after.

[@MAUBHS69]

im takin the lsat 2030 wish me luck

[@fayzstern]

Ok… so I’m going to fail miserably 🤣😥