Sentence
stringlengths 0
4.66k
| video_title
stringlengths 26
111
|
|---|---|
Do you know which one is the ultimate final conclusion? Go ahead and pause the video and try to find the logical structure for this argument, including the intermediate conclusion. All right, let's break it down. There are actually two mini-arguments within this very short paragraph. The first one is this. Johnston will not release his tax returns, therefore Johnston is a dishonest person. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
There are actually two mini-arguments within this very short paragraph. The first one is this. Johnston will not release his tax returns, therefore Johnston is a dishonest person. The fact that he is not releasing his tax returns is serving as support for this conclusion here, Johnston is a dishonest person. Now there's another argument here, and it goes like this. Johnston is a dishonest person. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
The fact that he is not releasing his tax returns is serving as support for this conclusion here, Johnston is a dishonest person. Now there's another argument here, and it goes like this. Johnston is a dishonest person. Johnston should never vote for a dishonest person, therefore you should not vote for Johnston. Now between the two, do you know which is the ultimate conclusion of the paragraph? Think about it for a second. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Johnston should never vote for a dishonest person, therefore you should not vote for Johnston. Now between the two, do you know which is the ultimate conclusion of the paragraph? Think about it for a second. You can even use the so test. It kind of works here. Try using so in this direction. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
You can even use the so test. It kind of works here. Try using so in this direction. Start here. You should not vote for Johnston, so Johnston is a dishonest person. Well, that doesn't sound right. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Start here. You should not vote for Johnston, so Johnston is a dishonest person. Well, that doesn't sound right. The fact that you shouldn't vote for someone doesn't make that person dishonest. It doesn't really make any sense. However, Johnston is a dishonest person, so you should not vote for Johnston. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
The fact that you shouldn't vote for someone doesn't make that person dishonest. It doesn't really make any sense. However, Johnston is a dishonest person, so you should not vote for Johnston. There it kind of works. The so test will actually get you all the way to the final conclusion in most cases. But here we can see how there are a number of premises and two conclusions, where one of the conclusions, an intermediate conclusion, actually served as a premise for the ultimate conclusion. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
There it kind of works. The so test will actually get you all the way to the final conclusion in most cases. But here we can see how there are a number of premises and two conclusions, where one of the conclusions, an intermediate conclusion, actually served as a premise for the ultimate conclusion. In addition to conclusions and premises, every argument also has assumptions. Technically assumptions are implicit premises, ones that aren't explicitly stated in the text. But let's not worry about that for right now. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
In addition to conclusions and premises, every argument also has assumptions. Technically assumptions are implicit premises, ones that aren't explicitly stated in the text. But let's not worry about that for right now. Let's just call them assumptions. Let's go back and take a look at the argument we just dealt with, or at least the part of it that led to the intermediate conclusion. Johnston will not release his tax returns. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Let's just call them assumptions. Let's go back and take a look at the argument we just dealt with, or at least the part of it that led to the intermediate conclusion. Johnston will not release his tax returns. Therefore Johnston is a dishonest person. It's not immediately obvious actually that those follow from one another. Yes, in the structure of the argument, the conclusion follows from the support, but that's because the person who wrote this is trying to make a certain kind of argument. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Therefore Johnston is a dishonest person. It's not immediately obvious actually that those follow from one another. Yes, in the structure of the argument, the conclusion follows from the support, but that's because the person who wrote this is trying to make a certain kind of argument. In the real world, it's not entirely obvious that Johnston is a dishonest person if he's not releasing his tax returns. What is this argument assuming? Think about it for a second. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
In the real world, it's not entirely obvious that Johnston is a dishonest person if he's not releasing his tax returns. What is this argument assuming? Think about it for a second. We can actually put it into words. What this argument is assuming is that the only reason Johnston will not release his tax returns is because he's a dishonest person. And that's not written in the text, but it's an important skill that you have to develop, finding the assumptions that are made in arguments. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
We can actually put it into words. What this argument is assuming is that the only reason Johnston will not release his tax returns is because he's a dishonest person. And that's not written in the text, but it's an important skill that you have to develop, finding the assumptions that are made in arguments. It's actually a skill that's very often used in philosophy, where you look at an argument that sounds kind of good, you discover the assumptions lying behind it, and you challenge those assumptions. Often arguments that look kind of okay are actually relying on faulty assumptions. In this case, maybe Johnston can't release his tax returns for some reason or another. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
It's actually a skill that's very often used in philosophy, where you look at an argument that sounds kind of good, you discover the assumptions lying behind it, and you challenge those assumptions. Often arguments that look kind of okay are actually relying on faulty assumptions. In this case, maybe Johnston can't release his tax returns for some reason or another. Maybe it's extremely complicated and he thinks that people will misunderstand it and it'll cause problems for him. Maybe that makes him a dishonest person anyway. But the point is, there are often gaps between the premises and the conclusion, and those are called assumptions. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Maybe it's extremely complicated and he thinks that people will misunderstand it and it'll cause problems for him. Maybe that makes him a dishonest person anyway. But the point is, there are often gaps between the premises and the conclusion, and those are called assumptions. You need to keep them in mind because they're important on the LSAT. Getting into this new logical mindset can take some practice. So let's go ahead and do some practice. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
You need to keep them in mind because they're important on the LSAT. Getting into this new logical mindset can take some practice. So let's go ahead and do some practice. I'm going to present a couple examples of blurbs, and I want you to try to find the logical structure within those blurbs. We'll move pretty quickly through them, and the way I want you to do it is to pause your video after I read the blurb, grab a piece of paper, and write down the conclusion first. Remember, you're looking for the conclusion. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
I'm going to present a couple examples of blurbs, and I want you to try to find the logical structure within those blurbs. We'll move pretty quickly through them, and the way I want you to do it is to pause your video after I read the blurb, grab a piece of paper, and write down the conclusion first. Remember, you're looking for the conclusion. What is everything leading up to? And then after that, find the support and see how the support relates to the conclusion. Let's get started with the first one. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
What is everything leading up to? And then after that, find the support and see how the support relates to the conclusion. Let's get started with the first one. It would cost more to fix your old car than it would to buy a new one. Plus there's no guarantee that it won't break down again before long. Therefore you shouldn't get your car fixed. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
It would cost more to fix your old car than it would to buy a new one. Plus there's no guarantee that it won't break down again before long. Therefore you shouldn't get your car fixed. Now this one's not going to be super tight logically like some of the other ones have been, but I still want you to get in the hang of finding the conclusion, finding the support. Go ahead and pause your video now, and we'll be back in just a second. All right, I hope you found the conclusion first. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Now this one's not going to be super tight logically like some of the other ones have been, but I still want you to get in the hang of finding the conclusion, finding the support. Go ahead and pause your video now, and we'll be back in just a second. All right, I hope you found the conclusion first. It's pretty clearly marked by this textual indicator here, therefore. The conclusion is you shouldn't get your car fixed. Now what leads up to it? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
It's pretty clearly marked by this textual indicator here, therefore. The conclusion is you shouldn't get your car fixed. Now what leads up to it? Well, the other statements. It would cost more to fix your old car than it would to buy a new one, and there's no guarantee your old car won't break down again. These are both reasons that you shouldn't get your car fixed, right? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Well, the other statements. It would cost more to fix your old car than it would to buy a new one, and there's no guarantee your old car won't break down again. These are both reasons that you shouldn't get your car fixed, right? It would cost more to fix your old car than it would to buy a new one, so you shouldn't get your car fixed. There's no guarantee your old car won't break again, so you shouldn't get your car fixed. See how the so test can work there to make it clear how the relation is between the support and the conclusion? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
It would cost more to fix your old car than it would to buy a new one, so you shouldn't get your car fixed. There's no guarantee your old car won't break again, so you shouldn't get your car fixed. See how the so test can work there to make it clear how the relation is between the support and the conclusion? That's the way I want you to see it. All right, let's do another one. This one's going to be a little bit tighter logically than the last one, but there's a little bit of a twist to it, so let's take a look and then we'll pause your video. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
That's the way I want you to see it. All right, let's do another one. This one's going to be a little bit tighter logically than the last one, but there's a little bit of a twist to it, so let's take a look and then we'll pause your video. Tom is going to be heartbroken tomorrow. If Tom asks Erica out, she will definitely say no, and if Erica says no, Tom will be immediately heartbroken, yet Tom plans to ask Erica out tomorrow. Poor guy. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Tom is going to be heartbroken tomorrow. If Tom asks Erica out, she will definitely say no, and if Erica says no, Tom will be immediately heartbroken, yet Tom plans to ask Erica out tomorrow. Poor guy. All right, pause your video and try to pull a logical structure from this little blurb here. Remember, start with the conclusion. All right, here comes the conclusion. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
All right, pause your video and try to pull a logical structure from this little blurb here. Remember, start with the conclusion. All right, here comes the conclusion. Tom is going to be heartbroken tomorrow. It's the first sentence in the blurb. Okay, so where did the rest of the blurb fall into it? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Tom is going to be heartbroken tomorrow. It's the first sentence in the blurb. Okay, so where did the rest of the blurb fall into it? Well, it must be support, and what do we have here? Tom plans to ask Erica out tomorrow, and if Tom asks Erica out, she'll definitely say no, and if she says no, Tom will be immediately heartbroken. So Tom's going to be heartbroken. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Well, it must be support, and what do we have here? Tom plans to ask Erica out tomorrow, and if Tom asks Erica out, she'll definitely say no, and if she says no, Tom will be immediately heartbroken. So Tom's going to be heartbroken. Sounds okay, it sounds really natural, but the twist here is that there's actually something missing. It's indicated by this space right here. Do you see what it is? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Sounds okay, it sounds really natural, but the twist here is that there's actually something missing. It's indicated by this space right here. Do you see what it is? There's no text left, so it can't actually be something that's written in the blurb, but logically, in the logical sequence, something is missing. It's pretty important. If you don't see it, pause and take another look. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
There's no text left, so it can't actually be something that's written in the blurb, but logically, in the logical sequence, something is missing. It's pretty important. If you don't see it, pause and take another look. There's something missing between here and here. Logically, there's a missing link. It's an intermediate conclusion. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
There's something missing between here and here. Logically, there's a missing link. It's an intermediate conclusion. The fact that Erica will say no tomorrow. That's actually not in the text anywhere, right? If Tom asks Erica out, she will definitely say no. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
The fact that Erica will say no tomorrow. That's actually not in the text anywhere, right? If Tom asks Erica out, she will definitely say no. Okay, that gets us really close, because we know that Tom does plan to ask her out tomorrow. So if he does ask her out, then she's going to say no, but it doesn't actually say in the text that she'll say no, right? It's there logically. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Okay, that gets us really close, because we know that Tom does plan to ask her out tomorrow. So if he does ask her out, then she's going to say no, but it doesn't actually say in the text that she'll say no, right? It's there logically. It's almost there on the surface, but you have to see that it's actually an intermediate conclusion. Once we see that, we can see the full logical progression, right? Tom plans to ask Erica out tomorrow, and if he asks her out, she's going to say no. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
It's almost there on the surface, but you have to see that it's actually an intermediate conclusion. Once we see that, we can see the full logical progression, right? Tom plans to ask Erica out tomorrow, and if he asks her out, she's going to say no. Therefore, she's going to say no tomorrow. If she says no, he's going to be heartbroken. He's going to be heartbroken. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Therefore, she's going to say no tomorrow. If she says no, he's going to be heartbroken. He's going to be heartbroken. Good job if you caught that one. All right, one more. This one's pretty long. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Good job if you caught that one. All right, one more. This one's pretty long. It's, I guess, a little tricky, but definitely nothing you can't handle. I'm not going to read it. I want to give you the chance to actually just read through it yourself and try to pull out the logical structure. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
It's, I guess, a little tricky, but definitely nothing you can't handle. I'm not going to read it. I want to give you the chance to actually just read through it yourself and try to pull out the logical structure. Go ahead and pause your video for this one, because I'm going to move on to the logical structure in just a second. All right, let's get to it. The conclusion of this blurb is this. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment0.mp3 |
Well, we know because of that storm that many lemon trees were recently destroyed. We also know this conditional here. Whenever many lemon trees are destroyed, the price of lemons rises. So we can conclude from that that the price of lemons is going to rise. Next, we have another conditional. If the Luz sisters have to pay more for lemons, their lemonade stand will fail. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
So we can conclude from that that the price of lemons is going to rise. Next, we have another conditional. If the Luz sisters have to pay more for lemons, their lemonade stand will fail. Well, the price went up, so they're going to have to pay more, which activates the second part of the conditional. Their lemonade stand will fail. Therefore, their lemonade stand will fail. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Well, the price went up, so they're going to have to pay more, which activates the second part of the conditional. Their lemonade stand will fail. Therefore, their lemonade stand will fail. Now, the stuff down here is actually background information. The Luz sisters recently set up a lemonade stand. There was recently a terrible storm in Florida. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Now, the stuff down here is actually background information. The Luz sisters recently set up a lemonade stand. There was recently a terrible storm in Florida. It's in there, but it doesn't actually figure into the logical structure of the argument at all. That's going to be the case in pretty much all of the questions you face on the LSAT. Not all of them. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It's in there, but it doesn't actually figure into the logical structure of the argument at all. That's going to be the case in pretty much all of the questions you face on the LSAT. Not all of them. Some of them are straightforward. Every sentence is part of the logical structure, like the examples that we did earlier. But pretty often, the logical structure will be embedded in a paragraph that just has some other information, some background information that doesn't actually bear upon the logic of everything. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Some of them are straightforward. Every sentence is part of the logical structure, like the examples that we did earlier. But pretty often, the logical structure will be embedded in a paragraph that just has some other information, some background information that doesn't actually bear upon the logic of everything. So keep an eye out for that. Keep an eye out for the sentences that are doing something logically, and be aware that some sentences are just sometimes background information. Now, there are times on the LSAT when you're going to want to know about negation. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
So keep an eye out for that. Keep an eye out for the sentences that are doing something logically, and be aware that some sentences are just sometimes background information. Now, there are times on the LSAT when you're going to want to know about negation. You're going to want to know how to negate certain statements, right? Usually, a statement is made, and we take that statement to be true. A negation is when we take—I hesitate to say the opposite, because in a second you're going to see why opposite is the wrong way to describe it. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
You're going to want to know how to negate certain statements, right? Usually, a statement is made, and we take that statement to be true. A negation is when we take—I hesitate to say the opposite, because in a second you're going to see why opposite is the wrong way to describe it. It can be a little confusing. But the negated version, the turned-off version of the statement, it's when what is said in the statement is not true. So the way that works is we're going to actually use this somewhat strange phrase, it's not the case that. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It can be a little confusing. But the negated version, the turned-off version of the statement, it's when what is said in the statement is not true. So the way that works is we're going to actually use this somewhat strange phrase, it's not the case that. To negate something, I just want you to put it's not the case that in front of it. And I want you to do that instead of just trying to eye it, right? You might just want to eye it, be like, okay, it will rain tomorrow. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
To negate something, I just want you to put it's not the case that in front of it. And I want you to do that instead of just trying to eye it, right? You might just want to eye it, be like, okay, it will rain tomorrow. The negated version, it will not rain tomorrow. And honestly, in that case, it's going to work. And in many cases, it's going to work. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
The negated version, it will not rain tomorrow. And honestly, in that case, it's going to work. And in many cases, it's going to work. But you're going to see in a second that it doesn't work in every case, or it can be a little confusing in some cases. But this here, it's not the case that, that's always going to give you the negated version of a statement. Let's take a look at it here. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
But you're going to see in a second that it doesn't work in every case, or it can be a little confusing in some cases. But this here, it's not the case that, that's always going to give you the negated version of a statement. Let's take a look at it here. It's not the case that it will rain tomorrow. It's not the case that I don't like violence. It's not the case that Mary is a good student. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It's not the case that it will rain tomorrow. It's not the case that I don't like violence. It's not the case that Mary is a good student. It's not the case that you should make a left at the intersection. Take a look at this one, right? Actually, let's take a look at the one before it too. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It's not the case that you should make a left at the intersection. Take a look at this one, right? Actually, let's take a look at the one before it too. In either of these cases, suppose you tried to eye it, right? Mary is a good student. What if you went ahead and said Mary is a bad student? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
In either of these cases, suppose you tried to eye it, right? Mary is a good student. What if you went ahead and said Mary is a bad student? That's the opposite. That's the negated version, right? I just kind of eyed it, you know? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
That's the opposite. That's the negated version, right? I just kind of eyed it, you know? Mary is a good student. The negation of that is that Mary is not a good student. Mary is a bad student. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Mary is a good student. The negation of that is that Mary is not a good student. Mary is a bad student. Well, not quite, right? Because Mary could just be an average student. She doesn't have to be a bad student to be not a good student, right? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Well, not quite, right? Because Mary could just be an average student. She doesn't have to be a bad student to be not a good student, right? Literally speaking, the negation of this is not that she's a bad student. It's just that she's not a good one. That leaves open the possibility that she's an average student or a bad student. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Literally speaking, the negation of this is not that she's a bad student. It's just that she's not a good one. That leaves open the possibility that she's an average student or a bad student. Again, here, what if you're like, oh yeah, the opposite of that. You should make a right at the intersection. Well, not necessarily. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Again, here, what if you're like, oh yeah, the opposite of that. You should make a right at the intersection. Well, not necessarily. It's just not the case that you should make a left. Maybe you should go straight. Maybe you should turn around. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It's just not the case that you should make a left. Maybe you should go straight. Maybe you should turn around. I don't know. Just don't make a left. But it's not necessarily a right. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
I don't know. Just don't make a left. But it's not necessarily a right. Now, of course, you could say you should not make a left at the intersection. That might be right. But you can see how kind of trying to eye it, trying to just figure it out on the fly without using it's not the case, that it can sometimes lead you into confusing directions. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Now, of course, you could say you should not make a left at the intersection. That might be right. But you can see how kind of trying to eye it, trying to just figure it out on the fly without using it's not the case, that it can sometimes lead you into confusing directions. Again, our proposal represents the best solution. The correct way to negate this is to say it's not the case that our proposal represents the best solution. Because if you just try to eye it, you might say our proposal represents the worst solution, which would be too far, too extreme, right? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Again, our proposal represents the best solution. The correct way to negate this is to say it's not the case that our proposal represents the best solution. Because if you just try to eye it, you might say our proposal represents the worst solution, which would be too far, too extreme, right? Just because it's not the case that our proposal represents the best solution, that doesn't mean that it represents the worst solution. It might represent an okay solution. It might represent a pretty good solution, but there's another one that's better. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Just because it's not the case that our proposal represents the best solution, that doesn't mean that it represents the worst solution. It might represent an okay solution. It might represent a pretty good solution, but there's another one that's better. It may represent a pretty bad solution, or it might represent the worst solution. But we don't want to have any of those other options as the negation. We just want to say it's not the case that our proposal represents the best solution. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It may represent a pretty bad solution, or it might represent the worst solution. But we don't want to have any of those other options as the negation. We just want to say it's not the case that our proposal represents the best solution. Remember that. Use it for negation. Negation pops up in many places throughout the LSAT. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Remember that. Use it for negation. Negation pops up in many places throughout the LSAT. It's always good to know how the LSAT understands the concept of negation, and how you should apply it. There's also a very particular LSAT logic way of dealing with number phrases and words. So take a look at this table here for a few common number phrases or words, and what they actually mean on the LSAT. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It's always good to know how the LSAT understands the concept of negation, and how you should apply it. There's also a very particular LSAT logic way of dealing with number phrases and words. So take a look at this table here for a few common number phrases or words, and what they actually mean on the LSAT. They don't always mean what you might take them to mean in regular speech. It's a very particular technical way of understanding these words, and you need to understand it because it's the way they're used on the LSAT. So let's take a look at one at a time. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
They don't always mean what you might take them to mean in regular speech. It's a very particular technical way of understanding these words, and you need to understand it because it's the way they're used on the LSAT. So let's take a look at one at a time. Many. On the LSAT, many only means more than one. So it's two or more. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Many. On the LSAT, many only means more than one. So it's two or more. In regular speech, perhaps you think that many is more than that. Maybe you would never use many for two. But in the LSAT, it's the very particular meaning of the word, and it's only two or more. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
In regular speech, perhaps you think that many is more than that. Maybe you would never use many for two. But in the LSAT, it's the very particular meaning of the word, and it's only two or more. Same with some. Two or more. Same with a few. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Same with some. Two or more. Same with a few. Two or more. Maybe you want to say, no, two is a couple. And anything more than that, three or more is a few. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Two or more. Maybe you want to say, no, two is a couple. And anything more than that, three or more is a few. Nope, not on the LSAT. If it's more than one, they can say a few. Just keep that in mind. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Nope, not on the LSAT. If it's more than one, they can say a few. Just keep that in mind. Now we move on to these other words and phrases that kind of have to do with percentages. Most. Maybe you wouldn't describe some 51% situation as most. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Now we move on to these other words and phrases that kind of have to do with percentages. Most. Maybe you wouldn't describe some 51% situation as most. Maybe in the way you use the word, you reserve the word for higher percentages than that. This is too close to even. You'd say almost even. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Maybe in the way you use the word, you reserve the word for higher percentages than that. This is too close to even. You'd say almost even. It's very technical on the LSAT. 51% is most. Most people say blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It's very technical on the LSAT. 51% is most. Most people say blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All that means is that 51% or more, all the way up to 100%, that's most. Same with majority of. The majority of is simply 51% or more. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
All that means is that 51% or more, all the way up to 100%, that's most. Same with majority of. The majority of is simply 51% or more. And a minority of, correspondingly, is just 49% or less. Which can be almost even, but 49% or less, that's a minority. Alright, how about a bit of practice based on what we did in the past two slides. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
And a minority of, correspondingly, is just 49% or less. Which can be almost even, but 49% or less, that's a minority. Alright, how about a bit of practice based on what we did in the past two slides. Negation and the special LSAT logic way of dealing with numbers and number phrases. Go ahead and pause the video. And what I want you to do is try to negate each of these statements that involve a number word or phrase. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Negation and the special LSAT logic way of dealing with numbers and number phrases. Go ahead and pause the video. And what I want you to do is try to negate each of these statements that involve a number word or phrase. So you're going to have to combine your knowledge of negation. Do you remember how we do that? Remember, it's not the case that. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
So you're going to have to combine your knowledge of negation. Do you remember how we do that? Remember, it's not the case that. So you're going to have to combine your knowledge of negation with your knowledge of the special LSAT logic way of dealing with numbers. Go ahead and give that a shot. And pause your video and I will reveal the answers in just a second. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
So you're going to have to combine your knowledge of negation with your knowledge of the special LSAT logic way of dealing with numbers. Go ahead and give that a shot. And pause your video and I will reveal the answers in just a second. Okay, let's go ahead and start with the first one. It's not the case that some children dance. That translates to 0 to 1 children dance. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Okay, let's go ahead and start with the first one. It's not the case that some children dance. That translates to 0 to 1 children dance. Next one. It's not the case that most children play. This one's a little tricky. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Next one. It's not the case that most children play. This one's a little tricky. That translates to a minority of or exactly half of children play. Remember, if it's not the case that most, 51% or more, that leaves open the possibility that it's exactly 50%. And it also leaves open the possibility that it's 49% or fewer. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
That translates to a minority of or exactly half of children play. Remember, if it's not the case that most, 51% or more, that leaves open the possibility that it's exactly 50%. And it also leaves open the possibility that it's 49% or fewer. Okay, it's not the case that many animals communicate. That translates to 0 to 1 animals communicate. And now it's not the case that a minority of politicians are honest. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Okay, it's not the case that many animals communicate. That translates to 0 to 1 animals communicate. And now it's not the case that a minority of politicians are honest. Not tricky, this one's like the second one. It translates to a majority of or exactly half of politicians are honest. Yeah, right. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Not tricky, this one's like the second one. It translates to a majority of or exactly half of politicians are honest. Yeah, right. It's not the case that a few sandwiches remain. 0 to 1 sandwiches remain. And it's not the case that none of the teachers helped. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
It's not the case that a few sandwiches remain. 0 to 1 sandwiches remain. And it's not the case that none of the teachers helped. That one translates to at least one teacher helped. So how'd you do? If you had a tough time, take another look. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
That one translates to at least one teacher helped. So how'd you do? If you had a tough time, take another look. See where you went wrong. See what tripped you up. You can go back in the video a little bit and review negation. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
See where you went wrong. See what tripped you up. You can go back in the video a little bit and review negation. Or you can refer to this expanded table that lists those same number words and phrases. It gives their meanings and gives the falsifier for them. Now for a moment let's talk about conditionals. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Or you can refer to this expanded table that lists those same number words and phrases. It gives their meanings and gives the falsifier for them. Now for a moment let's talk about conditionals. Specifically, if-then conditionals. Conditionals have already crept up earlier in this lesson. We've seen them at work. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Specifically, if-then conditionals. Conditionals have already crept up earlier in this lesson. We've seen them at work. But I want to take a moment and focus on them directly. A conditional is a statement that presents a certain condition for some other thing to happen. So in the condition that I lose my job, if that should happen, then, there's an implied then here, then this outcome occurs. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
But I want to take a moment and focus on them directly. A conditional is a statement that presents a certain condition for some other thing to happen. So in the condition that I lose my job, if that should happen, then, there's an implied then here, then this outcome occurs. If I lose my job, then I will not go on vacation. If I don't have a map, then I will get lost. If you build it, they will come. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
If I lose my job, then I will not go on vacation. If I don't have a map, then I will get lost. If you build it, they will come. And in the condition in which you prepare for the LSAT, if you prepare for the LSAT, then you will do well on it. We describe if-then conditionals as presenting sufficient, but not necessary conditions for a certain outcome. Now that may be kind of strange language for a lot of people, so let me break it down a little bit. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
And in the condition in which you prepare for the LSAT, if you prepare for the LSAT, then you will do well on it. We describe if-then conditionals as presenting sufficient, but not necessary conditions for a certain outcome. Now that may be kind of strange language for a lot of people, so let me break it down a little bit. A sufficient condition is a set of circumstances that is good enough to guarantee a certain outcome. A set of circumstances that is good enough to guarantee a certain outcome. Let's take a look. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
A sufficient condition is a set of circumstances that is good enough to guarantee a certain outcome. A set of circumstances that is good enough to guarantee a certain outcome. Let's take a look. In the set of circumstances in which I lose my job, it's guaranteed that I will not go on vacation. In the circumstances in which I don't have a map, any time I don't have a map, it's guaranteed I will get lost. If you build it in those circumstances, they will come. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
In the set of circumstances in which I lose my job, it's guaranteed that I will not go on vacation. In the circumstances in which I don't have a map, any time I don't have a map, it's guaranteed I will get lost. If you build it in those circumstances, they will come. And in the circumstances in which you prepare for the LSAT, this outcome will come to pass. But the important distinction is between sufficient and necessary conditions. So what that means is that even though the sufficient conditions are circumstances that are good enough to guarantee an outcome, they're not the only way to guarantee that outcome. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
And in the circumstances in which you prepare for the LSAT, this outcome will come to pass. But the important distinction is between sufficient and necessary conditions. So what that means is that even though the sufficient conditions are circumstances that are good enough to guarantee an outcome, they're not the only way to guarantee that outcome. We don't need it to be that way. We can still get the outcome through other methods or other ways, other routes. Take a look. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
We don't need it to be that way. We can still get the outcome through other methods or other ways, other routes. Take a look. If I lose my job, I will not go on vacation. Well, according to this statement, the possibility is open that if I don't lose my job, if I keep my job, I still might not go on vacation. I'm guaranteed if I lose it, I'm definitely not going on vacation. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
If I lose my job, I will not go on vacation. Well, according to this statement, the possibility is open that if I don't lose my job, if I keep my job, I still might not go on vacation. I'm guaranteed if I lose it, I'm definitely not going on vacation. But if I keep it, maybe I just won't go on vacation anyway. Okay. Now, if I don't have a map, I'm going to get lost. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
But if I keep it, maybe I just won't go on vacation anyway. Okay. Now, if I don't have a map, I'm going to get lost. But if I do have a map, but I can't read it very well or something, I might still get lost. If you build it, they will come. That's a reference. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
But if I do have a map, but I can't read it very well or something, I might still get lost. If you build it, they will come. That's a reference. I'm going to skip that for now. It's a little bit confusing. But take this one, right? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
I'm going to skip that for now. It's a little bit confusing. But take this one, right? If you prepare for the LSAT, you will do well on it. Well, that's true. I can tell you that. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment1.mp3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.