Sentence
stringlengths 0
4.66k
| video_title
stringlengths 26
111
|
|---|---|
So we don't need to put the double negations. So when we negate this for the contrapositive, we're just saying that if an animal lays eggs, it must not be a mammal. That's the negation of this over here. The last one for all you Pink Floyd fans. If you don't eat your meat, you can't have your pudding. Two negations. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment2.mp3 |
The last one for all you Pink Floyd fans. If you don't eat your meat, you can't have your pudding. Two negations. If you don't eat your meat, no pudding. But if I see you eating pudding, I know you must have eaten your meat. Okay. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment2.mp3 |
If you don't eat your meat, no pudding. But if I see you eating pudding, I know you must have eaten your meat. Okay. Hope you did well on this. If not, we've got a little more practice going. You can also just rewind the video a little bit and try this again. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment2.mp3 |
Hope you did well on this. If not, we've got a little more practice going. You can also just rewind the video a little bit and try this again. Erase this right off the screen and try this again. But now we're moving on to a bit more practice. These ones are a little more complicated, so take it slow. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment2.mp3 |
Alright, if either Cassie or Penelope quits, the band will disperse. Okay, we have a little disjunction here, and let's see how we represent this. Let's go with a C for Cassie quits. Now we have a disjunction, or P for Penelope quits, then, so if Cassie quits, or Penelope quits, then, we'll put a D for the band disperses. Alright now we have to do the contrapositive. It's a little tricky, we haven't done a contrapositive where one of the sides of the if-then was a disjunction. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Now we have a disjunction, or P for Penelope quits, then, so if Cassie quits, or Penelope quits, then, we'll put a D for the band disperses. Alright now we have to do the contrapositive. It's a little tricky, we haven't done a contrapositive where one of the sides of the if-then was a disjunction. So let's see what we can do. At least we know this part here, it's pretty easy. We know that we're going to learn something new if the band didn't disperse. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
So let's see what we can do. At least we know this part here, it's pretty easy. We know that we're going to learn something new if the band didn't disperse. But what is it we learn? Let's go back and look. Well either if Cassie quit, or if Penelope quit, either one of them alone was sufficient to trigger the dispersing of the band. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
But what is it we learn? Let's go back and look. Well either if Cassie quit, or if Penelope quit, either one of them alone was sufficient to trigger the dispersing of the band. So if the band didn't disperse, then neither one of these things must have happened. We can represent that this way. We can say that if the band didn't disperse, then we know that Cassie didn't quit, and we also know that Penelope didn't quit. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
So if the band didn't disperse, then neither one of these things must have happened. We can represent that this way. We can say that if the band didn't disperse, then we know that Cassie didn't quit, and we also know that Penelope didn't quit. Because either one would have been enough. So your contrapositive becomes, if the band did not disperse, or will not disperse, then Cassie didn't quit, and Penelope didn't quit. Alright, moving on. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Because either one would have been enough. So your contrapositive becomes, if the band did not disperse, or will not disperse, then Cassie didn't quit, and Penelope didn't quit. Alright, moving on. Every time it snows, both Pablo and Mark can be found at the library. Okay, so we have an if-then statement here, and we have a conjunction in the then portion of it. So every time it snows, let's go with an s for snow. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Every time it snows, both Pablo and Mark can be found at the library. Okay, so we have an if-then statement here, and we have a conjunction in the then portion of it. So every time it snows, let's go with an s for snow. If it snows, then p for Pablo is at the library, conjunction, and we'll have an m for Mark is at the library. Now another tricky contrapositive, because we have to negate this conjunction right here. So how do we negate a conjunction? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If it snows, then p for Pablo is at the library, conjunction, and we'll have an m for Mark is at the library. Now another tricky contrapositive, because we have to negate this conjunction right here. So how do we negate a conjunction? So here we have Pablo and Mark are at the library. So what does it mean to say it's not the case that Pablo and Mark are at the library? Now if you're being too hasty, you might say that nobody's at the library. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
So here we have Pablo and Mark are at the library. So what does it mean to say it's not the case that Pablo and Mark are at the library? Now if you're being too hasty, you might say that nobody's at the library. Pablo's not there, and Mark's not there. But that's not quite right, right? It actually is, all we're saying is that it's not the case that both of them are there, which means neither one of them might be there. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Pablo's not there, and Mark's not there. But that's not quite right, right? It actually is, all we're saying is that it's not the case that both of them are there, which means neither one of them might be there. But also, if just one of them's not there, this is still negated. So what we need to put here is if no Pablo or no Mark, if Pablo's not at the library or if Mark's not at the library. One important thing to note here, on the LSAT, the disjunction is what's called inclusive. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
But also, if just one of them's not there, this is still negated. So what we need to put here is if no Pablo or no Mark, if Pablo's not at the library or if Mark's not at the library. One important thing to note here, on the LSAT, the disjunction is what's called inclusive. It could be and. So this means and or, actually, right? Not P or not M or not both is actually what that means. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
It could be and. So this means and or, actually, right? Not P or not M or not both is actually what that means. But anyway, if Pablo's not at the library or Mark's not at the library, again, or both, then it must not be stowing. And the last one, if dogs and cats are both present, either Jan or Kyle will supervise. All right, we have a conjunction in the beginning, and we have a disjunction in the end. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
But anyway, if Pablo's not at the library or Mark's not at the library, again, or both, then it must not be stowing. And the last one, if dogs and cats are both present, either Jan or Kyle will supervise. All right, we have a conjunction in the beginning, and we have a disjunction in the end. Let's see what we can do. Let's have D for dogs being present and cats being present. So if dogs are present and cats are present, then either Jan or Kyle will supervise. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Let's see what we can do. Let's have D for dogs being present and cats being present. So if dogs are present and cats are present, then either Jan or Kyle will supervise. So I have a J for Jan will supervise or Kyle will supervise. If dogs and cats are both present, then either Jan or Kyle will supervise. Okay, contrapositive with a disjunction on one side and a conjunction on another. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
So I have a J for Jan will supervise or Kyle will supervise. If dogs and cats are both present, then either Jan or Kyle will supervise. Okay, contrapositive with a disjunction on one side and a conjunction on another. Very complicated stuff. Okay. What we need to say first is that neither one of these things happen. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Very complicated stuff. Okay. What we need to say first is that neither one of these things happen. Remember, it's kind of like this one up here. So if no J and no K, because what we're saying here is we're learning something new if this part isn't going on. If we don't have Jan and we don't have Kyle. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Remember, it's kind of like this one up here. So if no J and no K, because what we're saying here is we're learning something new if this part isn't going on. If we don't have Jan and we don't have Kyle. So if we don't have Jan and we don't have Kyle, what do we know? Well we know that it's not the case that dogs and cats are both present. And now we're going to start to represent it like this one. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
So if we don't have Jan and we don't have Kyle, what do we know? Well we know that it's not the case that dogs and cats are both present. And now we're going to start to represent it like this one. Either dogs are not present or cats are not present. Remember, it's inclusive, so maybe both are not present. So the contrapositive, if both Jan and Kyle do not supervise, then either dogs are not present or cats are not present. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Either dogs are not present or cats are not present. Remember, it's inclusive, so maybe both are not present. So the contrapositive, if both Jan and Kyle do not supervise, then either dogs are not present or cats are not present. Okay, I hope you did well with these. These were a little tough. And we're moving right along. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Okay, I hope you did well with these. These were a little tough. And we're moving right along. Don't worry if these are really tough. We just introduced you to these topics and now I'm hitting you with pretty difficult problems here. These are probably more difficult than most of what you're going to see on the LSAT. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Don't worry if these are really tough. We just introduced you to these topics and now I'm hitting you with pretty difficult problems here. These are probably more difficult than most of what you're going to see on the LSAT. But I just feel like it's important to stretch you here, to make you do more difficult ones so that when you see the ones on the LSAT, they're easy for you. But I want you to have the opportunity to try difficult ones, to really build this skill, and do not worry if it's tough. Go back, watch again, try them again, try them tomorrow, try them until you get them, try writing your own, and then doing the contrapositive and the symbolic logic. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
But I just feel like it's important to stretch you here, to make you do more difficult ones so that when you see the ones on the LSAT, they're easy for you. But I want you to have the opportunity to try difficult ones, to really build this skill, and do not worry if it's tough. Go back, watch again, try them again, try them tomorrow, try them until you get them, try writing your own, and then doing the contrapositive and the symbolic logic. From there, these are all ways of building a very important skill. But don't worry if you don't have that skill just yet. Stick to it. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
From there, these are all ways of building a very important skill. But don't worry if you don't have that skill just yet. Stick to it. Okay, so this time we're introducing some of those number words and phrases. It's really going to make things much more complicated. So same exercise though. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Okay, so this time we're introducing some of those number words and phrases. It's really going to make things much more complicated. So same exercise though. Introduce the written statement into symbolic logic, and then write the contrapositive, and then say the contrapositive out loud. That's going to be the tricky part here on this one, because when you say the contrapositive out loud, you're going to need to remember how to falsify or negate the number words and phrases. So again, take your time. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Introduce the written statement into symbolic logic, and then write the contrapositive, and then say the contrapositive out loud. That's going to be the tricky part here on this one, because when you say the contrapositive out loud, you're going to need to remember how to falsify or negate the number words and phrases. So again, take your time. Break down each logical chunk. Try to remember how these number words and phrases work on the LSAT, and do your best. Go ahead and pause your video, and I'll be right back. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Break down each logical chunk. Try to remember how these number words and phrases work on the LSAT, and do your best. Go ahead and pause your video, and I'll be right back. All right, let's dig in. If the news is on, most people will be paying attention. Okay, so the first part's pretty easy. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
All right, let's dig in. If the news is on, most people will be paying attention. Okay, so the first part's pretty easy. If the news is on, then most people will be paying attention. I'll call it A for attention. If the news, then attention. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If the news is on, then most people will be paying attention. I'll call it A for attention. If the news, then attention. Very good. Contrapositive. Okay, here's where it gets tricky. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Very good. Contrapositive. Okay, here's where it gets tricky. If it's not the case that most people will be paying attention, then the news must not be on. But now let's think about those numbers. If it's not the case that most people will be paying attention. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If it's not the case that most people will be paying attention, then the news must not be on. But now let's think about those numbers. If it's not the case that most people will be paying attention. What does that mean? Well, it means that if 50% exactly, or fewer, right? If exactly half, or a minority of people will be paying attention, then the news must not be on. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
What does that mean? Well, it means that if 50% exactly, or fewer, right? If exactly half, or a minority of people will be paying attention, then the news must not be on. That's how we read if it's not the case that most people blah, blah, blah. Remember, because we have to use the falsifier for most, which is exactly 50, or a minority. 49% or minus. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
That's how we read if it's not the case that most people blah, blah, blah. Remember, because we have to use the falsifier for most, which is exactly 50, or a minority. 49% or minus. If the mayor enacts this policy, some people will protest. Okay, so we'll have E for enact. If he enacts the policy, then some people will protest. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If the mayor enacts this policy, some people will protest. Okay, so we'll have E for enact. If he enacts the policy, then some people will protest. If it's not the case that some people protest, well, he must not have enacted that policy. But again, we need to go and look at this number. If it's not the case that some people will protest, or some people have protested, how do we make sense of that, thinking about the numbers? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If it's not the case that some people protest, well, he must not have enacted that policy. But again, we need to go and look at this number. If it's not the case that some people will protest, or some people have protested, how do we make sense of that, thinking about the numbers? Well, what are the cases in which this is going on? Either one person is protesting, or zero people are protesting, because it's two plus. So if nobody's protesting, or just one person is protesting, then we know that the mayor didn't enact the policy, because we need two plus. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Well, what are the cases in which this is going on? Either one person is protesting, or zero people are protesting, because it's two plus. So if nobody's protesting, or just one person is protesting, then we know that the mayor didn't enact the policy, because we need two plus. If many people attend the party, we will need to hire a server. Okay, so let's put attendance. If many people attend, then we have to hire a server. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If many people attend the party, we will need to hire a server. Okay, so let's put attendance. If many people attend, then we have to hire a server. If many people attend, then we hire a server. If we don't need to hire a server, this is a little silly, but how are we going to put this? It's not the case that many people attended the party. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If many people attend, then we hire a server. If we don't need to hire a server, this is a little silly, but how are we going to put this? It's not the case that many people attended the party. How do we read that? It's not the case that many people attend the party. Well, that means that either one person attended the party, or nobody attended the party, because all we need to say many is two plus. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
How do we read that? It's not the case that many people attend the party. Well, that means that either one person attended the party, or nobody attended the party, because all we need to say many is two plus. So two plus didn't happen, that leaves one or zero. If nobody helps, I'm going to quit. I'm sure we have all felt that way before somewhere. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
So two plus didn't happen, that leaves one or zero. If nobody helps, I'm going to quit. I'm sure we have all felt that way before somewhere. Let's say H for helps. Nobody helps, I'm going to quit. If I don't end up quitting, what does that mean? | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Let's say H for helps. Nobody helps, I'm going to quit. If I don't end up quitting, what does that mean? It means it's not the case that nobody helped, or more naturally, at least one person helped to block this part of the condition. If I didn't quit, at least one person helped. Again, I'm sure that was really tricky. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
It means it's not the case that nobody helped, or more naturally, at least one person helped to block this part of the condition. If I didn't quit, at least one person helped. Again, I'm sure that was really tricky. It was tricky for me putting it here right now, but again, if you didn't get it, go back, try it again, or give yourself a little break and try it again later. Or go back in the video and look at that table again to remember what the falsifiers are or the negators are for these number words and phrases. All right, one more, and this one's a little bit different. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
It was tricky for me putting it here right now, but again, if you didn't get it, go back, try it again, or give yourself a little break and try it again later. Or go back in the video and look at that table again to remember what the falsifiers are or the negators are for these number words and phrases. All right, one more, and this one's a little bit different. We're going to skip the text part. I've already given you symbolic logic here. You're going to take the symbolic logic and just give us the contrapositive and then say the contrapositive out loud, but of course you're going to be talking about variables. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
We're going to skip the text part. I've already given you symbolic logic here. You're going to take the symbolic logic and just give us the contrapositive and then say the contrapositive out loud, but of course you're going to be talking about variables. You're going to be saying X and Y instead of whatever X and Y stand for. Pause your video and try to get this one done. I'll be back in just a second. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
You're going to be saying X and Y instead of whatever X and Y stand for. Pause your video and try to get this one done. I'll be back in just a second. Okay, here we go. What does this say? If X, then Y. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Okay, here we go. What does this say? If X, then Y. Okay, and to get the contrapositive, we have to negate the right side, bring it to the left. If no Y, then we negate the left side, bring it to the right. Then no X. I'm saying it all together. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Okay, and to get the contrapositive, we have to negate the right side, bring it to the left. If no Y, then we negate the left side, bring it to the right. Then no X. I'm saying it all together. If no Y, then no X. Next one. If no D, then R. Okay, with the contrapositive, if no R, now we have that double negation again so we just get rid of the negation. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If no Y, then no X. Next one. If no D, then R. Okay, with the contrapositive, if no R, now we have that double negation again so we just get rid of the negation. If no R, then it must be D. If no R, then D. Here we go. If M and S, then F. Contrapositive. If there's no F, then there is either no M or no S or both. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If no R, then it must be D. If no R, then D. Here we go. If M and S, then F. Contrapositive. If there's no F, then there is either no M or no S or both. Inclusive disjunction. If B or L, then Z. So if no Z, then no B and no L. Oh boy, look at this one. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Inclusive disjunction. If B or L, then Z. So if no Z, then no B and no L. Oh boy, look at this one. If X and Y and Z, then C and D. If no C or no D or both, then it must be the case that one of these is missing. No X or no Y or no Z. I made a little mistake there by saying one of them is missing because it might be that one's missing, it might be that both are missing, or it might be that all three are missing because we have the inclusive disjunctions. If no C or no D, then no X or no Y or no Z or a combination. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
If X and Y and Z, then C and D. If no C or no D or both, then it must be the case that one of these is missing. No X or no Y or no Z. I made a little mistake there by saying one of them is missing because it might be that one's missing, it might be that both are missing, or it might be that all three are missing because we have the inclusive disjunctions. If no C or no D, then no X or no Y or no Z or a combination. And the last one, if P or Q, then no A and E. So how do we negate this part here? We're going to have to turn a conjunction into a disjunction because that's what we've been doing so far. So if either A, because that negates the first part, or negate the second part, no E, then now we have to negate this other bit, turning a disjunction into a conjunction. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
And the last one, if P or Q, then no A and E. So how do we negate this part here? We're going to have to turn a conjunction into a disjunction because that's what we've been doing so far. So if either A, because that negates the first part, or negate the second part, no E, then now we have to negate this other bit, turning a disjunction into a conjunction. No P and no Q. If A or no E, then no P and no Q. Alright, give yourself a real pat on the back if you were able to get through this one. And generally speaking, congratulations for even trying these. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
No P and no Q. If A or no E, then no P and no Q. Alright, give yourself a real pat on the back if you were able to get through this one. And generally speaking, congratulations for even trying these. Like I said, these were tough. They increased in difficulty as we went on, but I wanted you to have a chance to deal with some difficult practice. I really think that the ones that are on this page especially and some of the other ones, they are harder than anything you're going to see on the LSAT. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Like I said, these were tough. They increased in difficulty as we went on, but I wanted you to have a chance to deal with some difficult practice. I really think that the ones that are on this page especially and some of the other ones, they are harder than anything you're going to see on the LSAT. So go back tomorrow or at a later time and try this practice again. Keep coming back to this until you can do this. Just feel so intuitive, so natural. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
So go back tomorrow or at a later time and try this practice again. Keep coming back to this until you can do this. Just feel so intuitive, so natural. And again, make your own. Keep practicing. Make sure this is second nature and it will really, really give you an advantage when you're taking the LSAT. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
And again, make your own. Keep practicing. Make sure this is second nature and it will really, really give you an advantage when you're taking the LSAT. You don't want to be figuring this out on the LSAT. You want to just have this skill ready to go. Alright, that is it for the basics of LSAT logic. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
You don't want to be figuring this out on the LSAT. You want to just have this skill ready to go. Alright, that is it for the basics of LSAT logic. That was a dense lesson for sure. We went all the way from an introduction to what logic is at the most fundamental level, all the way to symbolic logic and contrapositives, all kinds of crazy stuff. Congratulations on getting through. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
That was a dense lesson for sure. We went all the way from an introduction to what logic is at the most fundamental level, all the way to symbolic logic and contrapositives, all kinds of crazy stuff. Congratulations on getting through. This is definitely a lesson that it makes sense to go back and watch again. I think you'll be extremely and pleasantly surprised at how natural everything feels after you've gone through it once with some difficulty. And then sleep on it or whatever, come back tomorrow and review this. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
This is definitely a lesson that it makes sense to go back and watch again. I think you'll be extremely and pleasantly surprised at how natural everything feels after you've gone through it once with some difficulty. And then sleep on it or whatever, come back tomorrow and review this. The concepts will be familiar and you'll have a much easier time with things. Try that practice again after you've gone through the video again. So definitely one worth repeating. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
The concepts will be familiar and you'll have a much easier time with things. Try that practice again after you've gone through the video again. So definitely one worth repeating. And next time we will be talking about logical reasoning, not as a concept like we were doing now. We'll be talking about the logical reasoning section of the LSAT, which is where a lot of this stuff really gets applied. So I look forward to seeing you there. | Understanding LSAT Logic_segment3.mp3 |
Now, weakening questions are a fairly common question type. 9% of all logical reasoning questions are weakening questions. And any improvement you make here will also pay off when you're dealing with strength and paradox questions as well. So the skills in this lesson are really important, not just for this question type, but for a few question types that all have very similar lines of reasoning. In this lesson, we're going to look at four things. How to spot a weakening question, what the process is for approaching one. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So the skills in this lesson are really important, not just for this question type, but for a few question types that all have very similar lines of reasoning. In this lesson, we're going to look at four things. How to spot a weakening question, what the process is for approaching one. And during the course of that process, there are a couple of steps that need a little bit further explanation. So when we go to evaluate arguments, we're going to need reasoning structures. How does the argument build? | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And during the course of that process, there are a couple of steps that need a little bit further explanation. So when we go to evaluate arguments, we're going to need reasoning structures. How does the argument build? And then we're going to trap answer patterns when we're going to eliminate wrong answer choices. And so we'll make sure to cover both of those things specifically. The way you identify that you're on a weakened question is in the language of the question stem itself. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And then we're going to trap answer patterns when we're going to eliminate wrong answer choices. And so we'll make sure to cover both of those things specifically. The way you identify that you're on a weakened question is in the language of the question stem itself. The question stem is what sets the question type. So we're looking for language that suggests that we're being asked to weaken the argument. And in this case, which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above? | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The question stem is what sets the question type. So we're looking for language that suggests that we're being asked to weaken the argument. And in this case, which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above? Well, the language that says most weakens is the clue that we're looking at a weakened question. And the most is a really common word and it becomes important because what we're looking for is the answer that's going to have the strongest impact, the one that actually weakens the argument the most. Answer choices that are too weak can often get themselves into trouble. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Well, the language that says most weakens is the clue that we're looking at a weakened question. And the most is a really common word and it becomes important because what we're looking for is the answer that's going to have the strongest impact, the one that actually weakens the argument the most. Answer choices that are too weak can often get themselves into trouble. And we're going to see that as we look at some of the trap answer patterns. In this example, which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above? Well, casting doubt represents calling it into question, weakening it. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And we're going to see that as we look at some of the trap answer patterns. In this example, which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above? Well, casting doubt represents calling it into question, weakening it. So that would tell us that we're looking at a weakened question here. In this example, which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above? And it's the words most undermines that tells us that we're looking at a weakened question in this one. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So that would tell us that we're looking at a weakened question here. In this example, which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above? And it's the words most undermines that tells us that we're looking at a weakened question in this one. So we really want to be looking in the question stem for language that says undermines, weakens, casts doubt on. Those are common language cues that tell us that we're looking at a weakened question. Now the process that you want to use when approaching a weakened question is going to be the same process as that you use whenever you're working on any question in the assumption family. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So we really want to be looking in the question stem for language that says undermines, weakens, casts doubt on. Those are common language cues that tell us that we're looking at a weakened question. Now the process that you want to use when approaching a weakened question is going to be the same process as that you use whenever you're working on any question in the assumption family. So whether that be a sufficient assumption question or a necessary assumption question, flaw question, strength in question, all of these question types rely on the same process because they're measuring the same thing. They're measuring our ability to evaluate arguments from slightly different perspectives. The first step that you want to take when working on one of these questions is to find the conclusion of the argument. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So whether that be a sufficient assumption question or a necessary assumption question, flaw question, strength in question, all of these question types rely on the same process because they're measuring the same thing. They're measuring our ability to evaluate arguments from slightly different perspectives. The first step that you want to take when working on one of these questions is to find the conclusion of the argument. It will always be there. It's really important to find that conclusion because that's what we're judging. Then you need to find the evidence for why it's true. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It will always be there. It's really important to find that conclusion because that's what we're judging. Then you need to find the evidence for why it's true. And the evidence will always be such that they don't quite prove the conclusion. And when we go to evaluate arguments, what we're looking for is the space between the evidence and the conclusion. Which that means is that we're going to concede the evidence. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And the evidence will always be such that they don't quite prove the conclusion. And when we go to evaluate arguments, what we're looking for is the space between the evidence and the conclusion. Which that means is that we're going to concede the evidence. We're going to grant that the evidence is true. But what we'll ask is whether or not the conclusion has to be true, even if the evidence is. So we're going to concede the evidence, challenge the conclusion, and that is essentially evaluating the argument. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We're going to grant that the evidence is true. But what we'll ask is whether or not the conclusion has to be true, even if the evidence is. So we're going to concede the evidence, challenge the conclusion, and that is essentially evaluating the argument. If we can come up with a reason why the conclusion doesn't have to be true, even though the evidence is, then we can judge the argument as being bad. And use that understanding to identify the gap in the reasoning. Use that gap to anticipate what the answer could sound like. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If we can come up with a reason why the conclusion doesn't have to be true, even though the evidence is, then we can judge the argument as being bad. And use that understanding to identify the gap in the reasoning. Use that gap to anticipate what the answer could sound like. And then work through the answer choices, either going to try to pair up that anticipation with an answer choice, or use trap answer patterns to get rid of wrong answer choices. So the reasoning trick that we need to pay most attention to on weakening questions is comparison. Comparisons typically work either by comparing two different things at a point in time, let's say the population of City A versus the population of City B. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And then work through the answer choices, either going to try to pair up that anticipation with an answer choice, or use trap answer patterns to get rid of wrong answer choices. So the reasoning trick that we need to pay most attention to on weakening questions is comparison. Comparisons typically work either by comparing two different things at a point in time, let's say the population of City A versus the population of City B. Or it'll work by comparing a thing at two different points in time. So let's say the population of City A 10 years ago versus the population of City A today. If we can identify these comparisons within the reasoning structure, within the argument itself, it'll give us a better chance at finding what the gap in the argument looks like. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Or it'll work by comparing a thing at two different points in time. So let's say the population of City A 10 years ago versus the population of City A today. If we can identify these comparisons within the reasoning structure, within the argument itself, it'll give us a better chance at finding what the gap in the argument looks like. Then we can use that gap to anticipate what an answer would sound like and go through the choices. So in this example, we're going to go ahead and see how a comparison can play out. Go ahead and give this question a try. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Then we can use that gap to anticipate what an answer would sound like and go through the choices. So in this example, we're going to go ahead and see how a comparison can play out. Go ahead and give this question a try. See if you can find an answer that you like. And when you're ready to continue, go ahead and play again, and we'll work it through together. All right, welcome back. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
See if you can find an answer that you like. And when you're ready to continue, go ahead and play again, and we'll work it through together. All right, welcome back. So in this question, we have an argument, and we're trying to figure out what's the conclusion. So remember, step one is find that conclusion. We're going to look for language indicators, words along the way that help us identify conclusions. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So in this question, we have an argument, and we're trying to figure out what's the conclusion. So remember, step one is find that conclusion. We're going to look for language indicators, words along the way that help us identify conclusions. One of the language cues that we want to learn is the word but. It's a pivot. Pivots don't help us identify conclusions, but they do help us identify the argument that's being presented, separating the author's point, in this case the travel industry consultant, versus an opposing point. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
One of the language cues that we want to learn is the word but. It's a pivot. Pivots don't help us identify conclusions, but they do help us identify the argument that's being presented, separating the author's point, in this case the travel industry consultant, versus an opposing point. So whatever the other airlines might be doing. That word but tells us that we're moving away from an opposing argument and towards the author's argument. And within the author's argument is where we're expecting to find the conclusion. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So whatever the other airlines might be doing. That word but tells us that we're moving away from an opposing argument and towards the author's argument. And within the author's argument is where we're expecting to find the conclusion. As we keep going a little bit further, we see this word because. Now because gives us evidence. So the evidence is that those travelers purchased 80% of all airline tickets. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
As we keep going a little bit further, we see this word because. Now because gives us evidence. So the evidence is that those travelers purchased 80% of all airline tickets. Who are those travelers? They're referring back to this previous group. Who are the previous group? | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Who are those travelers? They're referring back to this previous group. Who are the previous group? Well, the leisure travelers, right before the word because. So we know that the last clause is a premise. And if we keep looking, we might even see this word should. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Well, the leisure travelers, right before the word because. So we know that the last clause is a premise. And if we keep looking, we might even see this word should. They should. They should instead focus on the comfort of leisure travel. That's a recommendation. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
They should. They should instead focus on the comfort of leisure travel. That's a recommendation. And when you see the word should, it's a pretty good bet that that's going to be the conclusion. Not guaranteed because you might have more than one claim with the word should. But if none of the other claims have the word should, it's really common that that is the conclusion. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And when you see the word should, it's a pretty good bet that that's going to be the conclusion. Not guaranteed because you might have more than one claim with the word should. But if none of the other claims have the word should, it's really common that that is the conclusion. It's a recommendation. So the conclusion of the argument is that they should instead focus on the comfort of leisure travelers. Who are they? | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It's a recommendation. So the conclusion of the argument is that they should instead focus on the comfort of leisure travelers. Who are they? Well, they is referring back to the previous clause where we're talking about airlines. So notice that semicolon in the middle of that sentence. That tells us that there's a relationship between the two statements. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Well, they is referring back to the previous clause where we're talking about airlines. So notice that semicolon in the middle of that sentence. That tells us that there's a relationship between the two statements. So what comes before the semicolon and what comes after it, they're related to each other. But if we think about the meaning of each statement, it's not like that one supports the other. In fact, it's more of a, we're doing too much of this and not enough of that. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So what comes before the semicolon and what comes after it, they're related to each other. But if we think about the meaning of each statement, it's not like that one supports the other. In fact, it's more of a, we're doing too much of this and not enough of that. Where the airlines are over concerned about the comfort of passengers flying on business and should be focusing more on the comfort of leisure travelers. So the whole thing represents the conclusion. And so why are they saying that airlines should be focused more on leisure travelers? | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Where the airlines are over concerned about the comfort of passengers flying on business and should be focusing more on the comfort of leisure travelers. So the whole thing represents the conclusion. And so why are they saying that airlines should be focused more on leisure travelers? Well, remember leisure travelers book 80% of all airline tickets, right? So if you think about a map on an airplane, you know that the first few rows are safe for business class. The back of the plane is safe for the main cabin. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Well, remember leisure travelers book 80% of all airline tickets, right? So if you think about a map on an airplane, you know that the first few rows are safe for business class. The back of the plane is safe for the main cabin. There's a lot more seats in the back area than in the front area, right? So 80% of tickets are being sold in the main cabin. Only 20% of tickets are being sold in business class. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
There's a lot more seats in the back area than in the front area, right? So 80% of tickets are being sold in the main cabin. Only 20% of tickets are being sold in business class. So what's the stuff before the word, but doing in this case, well, several airlines are increasing elbow room and leg room in business class because surveys show that business travelers value additional space more than say better meals. And hopefully as we read through that, that word because catches your attention, it gives us an organizational relationship between the two ideas in the first sentence. So that what comes after the word because is the evidence for why what came before it is true. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So what's the stuff before the word, but doing in this case, well, several airlines are increasing elbow room and leg room in business class because surveys show that business travelers value additional space more than say better meals. And hopefully as we read through that, that word because catches your attention, it gives us an organizational relationship between the two ideas in the first sentence. So that what comes after the word because is the evidence for why what came before it is true. We actually have an opposing argument here with an opposing premise and an opposing conclusion. So now that we have the argument dissected, we need to figure out what's wrong with it. We need to evaluate it. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We actually have an opposing argument here with an opposing premise and an opposing conclusion. So now that we have the argument dissected, we need to figure out what's wrong with it. We need to evaluate it. Every single argument in the assumption family is going to be invalid. Means the conclusion will not follow from the evidence. And if we can figure out why, then we'll have the key to finding the right answer. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Every single argument in the assumption family is going to be invalid. Means the conclusion will not follow from the evidence. And if we can figure out why, then we'll have the key to finding the right answer. So why might it be the case that this advice that the travel industry consultant is giving may not be the best? Is it possible for some way or another that actually it is a good idea to be focused on the business travelers? So let's take this example here where we've got 10 tickets being sold in business class and 40 tickets being sold in the main cabin. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So why might it be the case that this advice that the travel industry consultant is giving may not be the best? Is it possible for some way or another that actually it is a good idea to be focused on the business travelers? So let's take this example here where we've got 10 tickets being sold in business class and 40 tickets being sold in the main cabin. That's 80% of all tickets being sold to leisure travelers. But does that really mean that we should be focused on them? If we think about it from the perspective of an airline, right, this is a recommendation for what the airline should be doing. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
That's 80% of all tickets being sold to leisure travelers. But does that really mean that we should be focused on them? If we think about it from the perspective of an airline, right, this is a recommendation for what the airline should be doing. So we probably want to think about it from their perspective. Airlines are designed to make money, does focusing on the leisure travelers make financial sense? Maybe. | Weaken 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.