Understanding LSAT Logic

[@insightlsat]

Hi everyone! The original Insight LSAT Prep Course, launched in 2017, is now outdated. I have released a new series of eight videos that is updated for the modern test and incorporates all that I've learned tutoring since I released the original videos almost a decade ago. kzbin.info/aero/PLafC0Olll40wXlcvb3JrIO1jkxuPJvz5D Thank you for all the support over the years. I hope you enjoy the new series. -Albert

[@lolo2good]

Thank you Lord for the other side of KZbin …I no longer watch music videos, I must study for the LSAT! This guy is awesome! 🎉2024🎉

[@laurynfarley]

i’m right with you ! we got this

[@lolo2good]

@@laurynfarleywe will be lawyers 🎉 GOOD LUCK!!!

[@peacesoundsstuff]

All Aboard, I had to physically get myself to change the habit Let’s crush this test!!!!

[@samuelgyan1730]

Let do it guys and make him proud

[@robertsloan3272]

How could anyone dislike this video? It truly lays the foundation for development and improvement in all 3 subjects. Albert is an incredible teacher! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and posting this lesson.

[@laurasolomon1522]

Have you written your LSAT and how was it ?

[@parzer0]

For me it was his voice. Your comment made me click the dislike button because its very obvious not a presidential or militant voice but one of a kid learning through teaching using his shy microphone skills. I'm sure you aced the logical reasoning.

[@damndragonflies]

@@parzer0 for me.. That’s exactly WHY I am sticking around for the next… I love his delivery!! I’m sure if a militant person was explaining all these symbols I might not understand so easily. He doesn’t assume you know anything.

[@walabang437]

​@@parzer0you posh bimbo

[@SenseiLlama]

the people who disliked it sold competing courses. Then got outdone, for free.

[@babuton]

the "so" test has busted this shit open for me. thanks!

[@aracelianaya7832]

Right!! that made all the difference.

[@GoodNews-px2im]

The “so rule” is golden! I’ve always been taught that whenever there is a “therefore” find out what it’s there for (finding premises that support or lead to the conclusion).

[@06amaris]

You are awesome..thank you so much for this. I have been procrastinating taking the LSAT for many many many years...i am now 40 yrs old and fully committed/motivated to reach my goals. Thank for helping with this journey!!

[@MsBdoll87]

thanks for sharing. i am 34 and have been the same way...procrastinating. what's the latest on your journey?

[@vehement-critic_q8957]

​​@@MsBdoll87 I'm 30 here & an ESL that means I'm second speaker of English, so it's a little burdensome as language could be a barrier, but that tutor knows how to guide & show the way to success. & yeah, I'm just like you procrastinating due to circumstances out of my hands.

[@LoveLifeAllWays]

Wow! I'm at the age now and I'm considering law school. I should have attended right after graduating. Did you attend law school!? If so how is it going?!

[@coltonstogner4363]

Wow youre amazing at explaining these complex logical relationships in a way that anyone can pick up on. Thank you for taking the time to create these videos and making this available for free

[@chelseaamira6894]

This video has helped me soooooo much. You can't even begin to understand! This is what everyone should watch before even studying anything for the LSAT. Your teaching style makes it so easy to pay attention to,and understand what I'm learning, thus keeping me fully engaged the whole entire time. Thank you so much I cannot wait to watch the rest.

[@withlovestephaniedenise7024]

I was told about the LSAT from a lawyer, who told me it'd needed for law school. Soooo, I tried it without knowledge. I was lost. Then I found this video. Wow! I went back to the test, and although, its approach is new to me, I had a better understanding. Thank you,

[@ttothemfd]

This is fantastic. Thank you so much! Understanding these symbols and their application is going to help me exponentially

[@LanaIrsh]

I took a diagnostic test before watching this video and was tripping up on some logic games questions because I was spending too much time rereading the conditions and scenario, your methods have helped me so much and made me realize the amount of time I could have saved when doing those logic games.

[@scherretzfamily7196]

I made a 144 the first time I took the LSAT just by watching the first couple of these videos. and that is after a trip to Vegas. I made a 136 after paying 1800 for one of those supposed prep courses.... which goes to show you the difference

[@KnockOutCutie]

I really enjoyed this lesson your teaching style fits my learning style I’d pay for a whole course

[@andrerobinson2923]

I finally caught on and was able to understand it as he went on. I got the majority of them correct. Thank you for explaining it the way you did.

[@kristal0076]

Hi, I scored 162 on practice test but want to do better. this vid is awesome to get my my crazy thoughts logical!

[@laminar28]

These videos are excellent, and I suggest anyone looking to raise some points go through the entire lesson plan!

[@uchechigenevieve7324]

I have watched a lot of videos, yours is the only one so far that explained thing in a very clear and understandable way.

[@lolo2good]

Very true! I took a course in college, but all they did was send me some practice books that made no sense until I started watching these videos, but now I will understand my PrepTest books a lot better!

[@lolo2good]

Same!!!!

[@toksfashable]

Amazing lesson, thank you for taking the time to explain all these to us. I really learnt a lot!

[@jinxy_jinx1392]

im a grade 10 student in legal studies, we are doing a Lsat (for marks) and these videos help a lot thanks!

[@chrisbrodie5650]

Thank you for putting this program together. Helps me study the LSAT. I work full time and I hope this works for high scores!!!

[@ScottWitoff-hv1qx]

Every lesson Insight LSAT teaches is excellent. I'm watching one of those lessons. I can conclude that I am watching an excellent lesson. 🙂

[@ninacarranza5189]

I got a 139 the first time without no training but I have hope this time I will get a good score

[@allissberry6959]

These videos are very helpful and study tips to help prepare me for the LSAT test. I plan to take it either this year or next year for sure, I hope I do a good job.

[@shrinidhiharwadekar2706]

i was so scared for the LSAT exam. Thank you so much sir, this video has made me very easy to study now.

[@davidndoma9286]

I feel pumped after watching this video. Thank you for such a great video.

[@JacksonDahlen107]

Working through these over the next week. Bless your soul.

[@johngivens5004]

Great video got me thinking logically now I'm a keep working at it everyday from now on

[@criminalscumx]

John Givens You can start by practicing basic English grammar.

[@nufirmdm]

@@criminalscumx shut the fuck up

[@alesanchez8492]

this channel is a gem

[@millicentpepion]

OMG.. I"m so excited!! Thank you for putting this together!!

[@alyssa01825]

Taking the LSAT this summer, thanks for your course

[@PengNation]

Great video. Watching this after I took a cold diagnostic test and I can see how much of the symbolic representations especially might have been useful during the test. A suggestion: on the slide on numerical proportions, it might be more accurate/clearer to say 50%< than 51%+ etc.

[@uria702]

I agree. Change it to >= or

[@hard2getitrightagain314]

This is an important point. There is a lot of territory between 51% and 49%. 50% + 1 is one way I was taught. Even that is too broad. >50% is the most correct, I imagine.

[@NoeItorious]

This was really fun. Nailed it too. Thanks!

[@LucianaFerreiraHervey]

Thanks! Your videos are great!!!

[@insightlsat]

Thank you too!

[@hylandbenjamin12]

Thanks!

[@itswolvesgate]

Best LSAT video I have seen so far thanks 👍👍👍

[@BradC44]

Good video for LSAT prep. At 58:06 there's a false statement. Echidnas and the duck billed platypus are both mammals and both lay eggs.

[@maxwilk8290]

52:15 wouldnt if be considered "sufficient but not necessary" condition? Therefore if Jamal is not happy, we still don't know if it is not snowing? wouldn't it need to be Only if it is snowing, Jamal is happy or If and only if it is snowing, jamal is happy. We cannot rotate the argument if it is only a sufficent cause without having an assumption. Correct me if I am wrong.

[@emorgan7498]

I was searching the comments for this exact question. He lost me there! My thought,I think was a little different. In his first example, "if I don't have a map, I will get lost".. he said I could still get lost with a map. So, in this example, couldn't he be happy even if it's NOT snowing?

[@quitamartor4314]

WOW, thank you so much for these lessons; I've a LSAT to write on Monday July 4. Very sure this would help me 🙏

[@hailskay]

how did it go??

[@carolinan4768]

Love the way you teach! Thank you very much! Love this!

[@damndragonflies]

Thank you…. not sure yet how it applies to the LSAT!! But I appreciate this before I pay for my tutor and take any practice exams!!

[@ohandromeda6995]

At 1:12:00 would writing the symbols (neg)H ---> Q, with the second being (neg)Q ---> H be correct? When speaking out loud I read as If I don't quit, at least one person helped.

[@philmascia1424]

I know your post is over a year old, but I was working that question and I thought the same thing you did. Especially, because the Pink Floyd If you don’t eat your meat question was (neg)M-->(neg)P……I wish you had gotten a reply to your comment. .?.

[@simsimmons8884]

Question. At 9:34 you present the "so test" on the paragraph regarding taking the LSATs. I see another conclusion as "so, practicing LSAT questions is an effective way of improving your LSAT score." Why is this not the conclusion? This seems as logical as "so, time spent practicing LSAT questions is thus time well spent." It seems that the only indicator to pick one over the other is that " time spent practicing LSAT questions is thus time well spent." is a more general conclusion. Is this test something that should be added to the final determination of which conclusion is the final conclusion? The more general the conclusion, the more final it is.

[@ginikaurpropertiesgroup7840]

I love it! Thank you for all the great exercises and help!

[@Duckgoose17]

Wow I am actually understanding and getting this...Exciting....ty for sharing

[@SingingDiaries]

This was so so helpful! Thank you for uploading this :D

[@ymerithebeloved]

this is really helpful and i really like the way you teach. thank you so much!

[@AuzSanchez]

1:11:55 can you explain why you wouldn't negate H in the last question in the initial answer? I negated it because of the word "nobody" and then in the contrapositive there was no negation for H. I hope this makes sense!

[@hhhsp951]

In response to the negation of "If you prepare for the LSAT, you will do well... ", instead of filling in random bubbles and doing well, it might just make perfect sense to you.

[@cecilialaracengiz2848]

Hi, on the practice problems, the one that says "if nobody helps, I am going to quit" you started with H--> Q shouldn't it be a negated -H first since its nobody helps and the negated version would be somebody helped.

[@cecilialaracengiz2848]

I really like your videos by the way. They are very helpful.

[@napnap609]

In the example of conditionals with "only", I get the first statement "I will attend ONLY if I can afford it, to which you offer a counter thought of: You may not go even if you CAN afford it. Great I get that. But in the boiling water example you don't offer a counter thought. Is there one? "Only if enough heat is applied to it does water boil". So that's definitely a necessary condition, but how is that not sufficient?

[@nicolemarini7540]

question: at 19:22, the exercise with Erica and Tom. Could the intermediate conclusion be: Erica will say no, excluding ?

[@joshuarizek9043]

thats exactly what bothered me about this. to say "she will definitely say no" and " she will say no tomorrow" are very close to the same thing. I don't see why that intermediate conclusion is necessary.

[@insightlsat]

The argument is all about what's going to happen tomorrow, so we have to keep that in there.

[@BoulderBoulder_]

I should've watched these videos while I was taking symbolic logic lol. Also, can confirm, symbolic logic was way harder than the material I've seen on the LSAT so far haha

[@psykored524]

@59:13 when I read that sentence I right away thought of Pink Floyd haha

[@anthax1]

my first time trying these out, seems complicated but pretty straight forward with some practice.

[@yuanjoyce6663]

for practice at 59:35. I think it should be K--D, seems if K does, D does. If you do D--K, it would be D does, as a result , K does. Right?! So answer should be -D --- -K

[@willonz]

@35:11 water can boil if pressure is low enough, too. Does this example assume this as well?

[@samnunn3948]

Would the contrapositive of the Sam Bart Alex portion be; If not Bart ^(and) Alex -> not Walking -> not enough Time v(or) not Sam. ??? Edit: If not B ^ A > not W > not T v S

[@alexzylka4867]

thank you & thanks to KZbin..

[@LATHSPELL70]

If nobody helps, I am going to quit. H --> Q ¬Q --> ¬H. I put ¬H ---> Q, as in nobody helped (¬H). Is there a logical fallacy that I am not connecting if I do it this way. My contrapositive ended up looking like this: ¬Q -> H (at least one person helped). Seems like I'm saying the same thing, but making sure I didn't miss something.

[@ajmalr4790]

Same thing I just did in my head!

[@r.p.8906]

'Nobody helps" is already a negation of Help and so, it will be --, H---> Q contrapositive is --, Q--> H. ( 0-1)

[@abracadabra2395]

Questions: 1. Isn't the missing piece the assumption that Tom will ask her out, not that she will say no if he does? The former isn't explicitly stated, while the latter is. 2. The Lu sisters could own a lemon tree and the entire argument could be junk. This feels like a more blatant missing logic leap than the one you pointed out with Tom's broken heart. What am I not understanding? (Also, thank you for these videos!!)

[@politico6792]

Abra Morgan I’m no expert, but the concepts of symbolic logic don’t pick up these nuances of language. You treat every statement as a truth

[@theelizabethanway]

The Tom example...heartbroken Tom..Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. And LuluLemon....love the puns

[@cryptocanada3038]

oh wow! I didn't even pick that up. Great eye!

[@lordvader5246]

I have a question regarding the conditional "only" example of: "only if enough heat is applied to it does water boil." This might be a matter of interpretation but when I read "enough heat" im assuming its suggesting that there is "enough heat to get water to boil" in which case applying "enough heat" to water to get it to boil would make it both necessary and sufficient to get water to boil which would make it an "if and only if" statement as opposed to an "only" statement. Can someone explain why I am wrong or if I just interpreting this differently? He didnt spend a lot of time answering that example.

[@kmcken0001]

I am confused about this too, does anyone have an explanation?

[@ruqaia9563]

for the Q (if nobody helps, I am going to quit) I wrote it as (no H > Q) then the opposite ( 1+ Q > H) meaning I interpret no bady helps as a negative scenario. I'm not sure if it's only another way or it going to affect the result in more complicated situations

[@purseeggXD]

35:55 but if enough heat is applied, water logically must boil, where is the insufficient part here?

[@ryanyamamoto4295]

Not a chemist but it has to do with disturbance or something. Water can be sufficiently heated to boiling temperatures in the microwave but it won’t start boiling until it’s disturbed (or some form of motion or something ).

[@ikarhbzgahk276]

I took a logic course a couple years ago so this all makes sense to me

[@amoontree]

Lol

[@cryptocanada3038]

I can't believe how much I love this shit!

[@kifeda]

I'm struggling but this is a really good video. Like excellent.

[@amynguyen6411]

Thank you for making such a great video!

[@kjaniece]

I had a question about the falsifying numerical statements. On the most of the questions, is it possible to say all or because “all” was not used in the PowerPoint prior, it can not be used as an answer? Ex- some children dance translates to “it’s not the case that some children dance. The only answer that was given was 0-1 children dance. Can “all”also be used?

[@StoryBookMaker]

@1:11:33 can someone please clarify why the contrapositive is ¬Q -> ¬H ? I interpreted nobody as 0, and a contrapositive of at least one. Should the contrapositive for this example not be ¬Q -> H? I did not quit because at least one person helped?

[@fordrivingandothers]

for this problem, H was stated to be "Nobody helped." so ¬Q would be "At least one person helped." if it was your contrapositive example, "¬Q -> H," it would have been stated as "if its not the case that im going to quit, then nobody helped." which is not the correct statement. it gets a bit confusing due to H being a negative statement like "nobody helped."

[@geetar16]

Question.. For "If nobody helps, I am going to quit." Why is "nobody helps" represented by 'H' rather than negated 'H'? (¬H)

[@geetar16]

When we symbolized "If you don't eat your meat" we used negation '¬M' I'm wondering what the difference is between "didn't eat meat" and "nobody helped"

[@zachsabe]

@@geetar16good question i was wondering the same. maybe he sees it not as a negation but as "0 helpers" and that in itself is not a negation?

[@donnakim6208]

Because if you use "not H" for nobody helps, in the negation, it becomes "Q -> H" which means if I quit - help. This might lead to the extreme since "helps" can mean at least one person helps, many people help or all help. However if you just take some extra trouble to say in your head that H stands for "nobody helps," the negation of "H->Q" will be '"not Q -> not H" meaning If I am not quitting, it is not that nobody helped = If I am not quitting at least one person helped.

[@kwameshakaopare925]

I apologize if you already answered - on the conditions w/only...the water boiling example, you never explain why it’s not sufficient. The “will attend only” made things very clear but what is insufficient of the heat/water one. Please and thank you

[@Filmedbycjj]

at 1:12:00 shouldnt it be NOT H then Q because it says "if NOBODY helps" ? Cause then wouldn't it be -H → Q and the contrapositive -Q → H ?

[@AuzSanchez]

thats what i did haha

[@jonawells8064]

Can you explain why these are the conclusions? The LSAT question I didn’t understand why exactly it was “Time spent practicing LSAT questions is this time well spent”

[@AlliYAFF]

Wait...the whole "some" thing seems to contradict most of what I have learned in logic. Wouldn't it be apt to say that "some students passed the exam" even if only one student did?

[@syedmammar1]

Learned a great deal. Thank you.

[@troymcdougal9010]

You said "Most" and (assumedly) "The majority of" can be 100% of the items, but can "a minority of" be 0% or does it have to be at least 1 of the item?

[@phareke]

I have a question. If at 1:13:29 we can start with "if no D then R" the way we did, then why didn't we write the previous exercise at 1:11:36 the same way (If nobody helps then I quit)?

[@StoryBookMaker]

I have the same question as well. I had written for the contrapositive, that “if I did not quit, someone helped.” And I didn’t put a negation on the “H”

[@mafia6330]

So logically it follows that if it rains tomorrow, the mayor will be (naught)E. 46:09

[@hhhsp951]

I went for NotP instead of C because in this scenario the parade (P) would not have happened if it had rained (R)

[@Applecompuser]

There was reference to a free worksheet on the website, however, I do not see it. Does anyone know where this worksheet is? PS This is a great video series! Thanks for sharing them. PSS If anyone else is prepping for the LSAT now, I would be happy to do a study group even if by Facetime etc.

[@About_Argo]

I know it's late, I hope this is the correct one. www.insightlsat.com/worksheet

[@chrisbrodie5650]

Now my goal is 179

[@maleekielshamsa513]

1:06:00 Please advise Why is it not Jan or Kyle instead of Jan and Kyle? Since it was originally a disjunction??

[@aigarcia123]

Maybe i've just been using the English language wrong, but to me, If it is snowing, then Mike and Josh can be found at the library, the contrapositive would be if Mike and Josh can't be found at the library, then it is not snowing. changing it to in the contrapositive makes it seem like both didn't have to be true in the first part. Might just be i've been saying it wrong my whole life. lemme know

[@sohakaviani421]

Doesn't some mean 1+? Like at least one and more? At 26:08 you say 2+ for some. Thank you for the great videos btw.

[@treynoe4934]

In the conditionals sections can someone explain what he means by Sufficient and Necessary conditions? I understand necessary, but the definition of sufficient was muddied by the "if and only if" conditionals

[@erinfield1943]

1:05:30- Could we say that ["not" Jan and "not" Kyle] is the same as ["not" Jan or Kyle]? I had the latter and I read it like "If neither Jan or Kyle is supervising..." Same thing, isn't it? 1:06:00- Dude, I think you're doing this one wrong. The result for the contrapositive is that cats AND dogs aren't present. They both have to be there together for Jan and Kyle to supervise. Am I wrong?

[@r.p.8906]

Remember that the contrapositive of "and' is "or", and the contrapositive of "or" is "and". Hence, the video is correct. You negate the letters and you also negate the "and " and the 'or'.

[@bhayovah]

Isn't the negation of some "none" (and the same for "a few")?

[@chrisgreen1579]

Great resource so far

[@islaa2149]

21:21 but the storm causes the trees to be destroyed. why cant it be a part of the reasoning?

[@Rm9512]

i have a question: in the practice section at the end of the video, in the symbolic logic of "if nobody helps, i will quit..." shouldn't the symbol for help be positive? without the negation symbol? idkw i'm not getting that. would really love to know what i misunderstood!

[@IsaacWMayer]

You’re my hero! 💯

[@uria702]

I scored 155 on a diagnostics going in blind and never having researched the test. I’m trying to get it up to 170 points by learning the right strategies and methods for this test. Within 6 months. Do you think that’s reasonable?

[@Hurlzaz]

That's very reasonable. 155 is quite good having never researched the test. It's certainly achievable.

[@jayl2331]

“So test” Very nice!

[@petercho7660]

Hi! Thanks for the video. In the example "If many people attend the party, we will need to hire a server", you said the negation is "If we don't need to hire a server, then ..." I was wondering what the implication of "if we don't need to hire a server" is. Does that mean we don't hire any servers, or does it mean that you don't hire A server (either no servers or many servers)?

[@ceciliaaceves6397]

Amazing Stuff! It has helped me so much!

[@elle9633]

Excellent! Thank you!

[@YusufSiddiqui-c1u]

Another LSAT video said "some" means an unknown amount but yours says 2+. Which is correct?

[@myrrhyahmi]

How dare you say I am not a good student? With no premises? Unbelievable. 😢 -Mary

[@AlexanderMahone-sp3zh]

OMG, this is gold