@wuni Hey, I have found that writing the conditions in short hand (T--->J etc) as I am reading each condition works well. By the time you have read all the conditions, you have a fragmented version of the puzzle. All the best.
you were able to go through the examples very quickly (with the answers already written on the screen); however, during the actual exam, I've noticed that it takes much longer to write it all out... are there any tips to make it faster?
To those who thought c was also necessarily true, please realize that you can't reverse the logical relationship. You MUST get straight what necessary and sufficient conditions mean or you won't do well on the LSAT. If A then B (A-----> B) does NOT also show that "If B then A". Example: If you study hard (A), then you will do well on the LSAT (B). However, just because you do well on the LSAT doesn't mean you necessarily studied hard. You could have just had good luck!
Incidentally, yours is a very common mistake when dealing with Formal Logic; you have arrived at the logical converse of the given chain. Simply reversing the logic does not provide us with an adequate logical equivalent.
Thank you so much for this video.
AshleyPurple311 3 months ago
this is a smart way to make logic games so much easier
MissGlamarellaaa 7 months ago
@winslowlady Would E) also be true? If Andrew is invited than Steve must not be invited?
alfy547 10 months ago
One of the best tutorials I've ever seen.
water1051 10 months ago
@wuni Hey, I have found that writing the conditions in short hand (T--->J etc) as I am reading each condition works well. By the time you have read all the conditions, you have a fragmented version of the puzzle. All the best.
guitarz1991 11 months ago
you were able to go through the examples very quickly (with the answers already written on the screen); however, during the actual exam, I've noticed that it takes much longer to write it all out... are there any tips to make it faster?
wuni 1 year ago
great insight! very easy to follow and effective.
cascam1 1 year ago
To those who thought c was also necessarily true, please realize that you can't reverse the logical relationship. You MUST get straight what necessary and sufficient conditions mean or you won't do well on the LSAT. If A then B (A-----> B) does NOT also show that "If B then A". Example: If you study hard (A), then you will do well on the LSAT (B). However, just because you do well on the LSAT doesn't mean you necessarily studied hard. You could have just had good luck!
jlaynetn 2 years ago
Tight Work!
antim3853 2 years ago
Incidentally, yours is a very common mistake when dealing with Formal Logic; you have arrived at the logical converse of the given chain. Simply reversing the logic does not provide us with an adequate logical equivalent.
dbmcilquham 2 years ago