Post removed. Forum

[agglomeration]

Having some trouble with this stupid LR question. Looked at some other boards but couldn't find a satisfactory explanation. Question is PT 64 S1 23. Its the Ethicist "Marital Vows/Love as a feeling" sufficient assumption question. Can someone help walk me through this one in their thought process? Also, if any of you are "diagram heavy" LR'ers could you show me how you diagrammed it too? This is the only question i got wrong in that section and it's annoying me i can't figure it out.

here's a bit of my though process.

LF= love feeling
PS= Promise makes sense
F= feelings
C= Control

LF-->~PS
F-->~C
C(promise)-->~sense

Ok so i stop the diagramming isn't looking like it'll work. Re-read. I see "control" a lot in the premises but not the conclusion. Love is everywhere but is also the focal point. So maybe connect those two. Not sure. Screw it answer choices.

A) no because this is merely a restating of one of the premises (feelings are not within one's control)
B) Looks good. If promising to do something makes no sense, then we shouldn't do it. But this doesn't feel great.
C) (i choose)- since i couldn't figure out the answer before hand and after going through and eliminating i was still kinda stumped, it made me think this was one of those weird sufficient questions where the answer is kinda like a necessary assumption question. So this looks good. If love can't be taken to refer to something other than feelings, then the argument would fall apart.
D) (correct answer- but i eliminated)- I eliminated it because it says "should not be interpreted" when the conclusion is about "those making marital vows." Hmm. If i'm making the marital vow, i'm not interpreting it. The person i'm saying it too is interpreting it. Ok eliminate.
E) Eliminate because it's kind of a premise booster.

Any help? Thanks!

Went to PT 64 s1 23 and it wasn't this question lol. That was dec 2011 right?

It's October 2011. Just double checked-- it is PT 64. I think your looking at 65

[Thorcogan]

Having some trouble with this stupid LR question. Looked at some other boards but couldn't find a satisfactory explanation. Question is PT 64 S1 23. Its the Ethicist "Marital Vows/Love as a feeling" sufficient assumption question. Can someone help walk me through this one in their thought process? Also, if any of you are "diagram heavy" LR'ers could you show me how you diagrammed it too? This is the only question i got wrong in that section and it's annoying me i can't figure it out.

here's a bit of my though process.

LF= love feeling
PS= Promise makes sense
F= feelings
C= Control

LF-->~PS
F-->~C
C(promise)-->~sense

Ok so i stop the diagramming isn't looking like it'll work. Re-read. I see "control" a lot in the premises but not the conclusion. Love is everywhere but is also the focal point. So maybe connect those two. Not sure. Screw it answer choices.

A) no because this is merely a restating of one of the premises (feelings are not within one's control)
B) Looks good. If promising to do something makes no sense, then we shouldn't do it. But this doesn't feel great.
C) (i choose)- since i couldn't figure out the answer before hand and after going through and eliminating i was still kinda stumped, it made me think this was one of those weird sufficient questions where the answer is kinda like a necessary assumption question. So this looks good. If love can't be taken to refer to something other than feelings, then the argument would fall apart.
D) (correct answer- but i eliminated)- I eliminated it because it says "should not be interpreted" when the conclusion is about "those making marital vows." Hmm. If i'm making the marital vow, i'm not interpreting it. The person i'm saying it too is interpreting it. Ok eliminate.
E) Eliminate because it's kind of a premise booster.

Any help? Thanks!

Went to PT 64 s1 23 and it wasn't this question lol. That was dec 2011 right?

It's October 2011. Just double checked-- it is PT 64. I think your looking at 65

Yeah I was a test too far. Go back a page and check out my response

[dosto]

.

[062914123]

.

[dosto]

.

[062914123]

.

[dosto]

.

[062914123]

.

[goldenboy514]

Listen to JY's comments in the beginning of Theaters explanation for LG motivation

omg no dont tempt me. im trying not to watch any explanations for 70 lg so when i redo it i can get as close as possible to the real deal

same exact boat lol. seeing as i went -6 on theatres...........

[dosto]

.

[vicpin5190]

Had LSAT dream nightmare. Guess it's time to get serious.

im about to start having these again too, i can feel it

i had a dream a few weeks ago about how I had to save my friends from a terrorist hostage situation by solving LR problems. They didn't make it and I scored a 120. Pretty bad dream.

[bombaysippin]

I know we went over this during a review, but could someone help me out again.

I'm trying to just memorize it because I have to think about it every time and that takes too long. I don't know why this messes me up so much.

Logical Reasoning. Use of NEVER, CAN'T for conditional statements? How to diagram?

John NEVER ate apples: Ate apples -> ~John and/or John -> ~Ate Apples. Correct?

Robots CAN'T think: Robot -> ~Think and/or Think -> ~Robot Correct?

[goldenboy514]

I know we went over this during a review, but could someone help me out again.

I'm trying to just memorize it because I have to think about it every time and that takes too long. I don't know why this messes me up so much.

Logical Reasoning. Use of NEVER, CAN'T for conditional statements? How to diagram?

John NEVER ate apples: Ate apples -> ~John and/or John -> ~Ate Apples. Correct?

Robots CAN'T think: Robot -> ~Think and/or Think -> ~Robot Correct?

1st. John -> ~apples. Contrapositive: Apple -> ~john.........Look at it like WHAT GARUNTEES WHAT. John never ever ate an apple. So If you got john, you know that sure as hell he didnt eat no stinken apple. On the flip side, if someone ate an apple, it is GARUNTEED IT WASNT JOHN.
WHAT GARUNTEES DO YOU GET FROM THE statements....Think of the garuntee as the necessary statement fyi

[bombaysippin]

I know we went over this during a review, but could someone help me out again.

I'm trying to just memorize it because I have to think about it every time and that takes too long. I don't know why this messes me up so much.

Logical Reasoning. Use of NEVER, CAN'T for conditional statements? How to diagram?

John NEVER ate apples: Ate apples -> ~John and/or John -> ~Ate Apples. Correct?

Robots CAN'T think: Robot -> ~Think and/or Think -> ~Robot Correct?

1st. John -> ~apples. Contrapositive: Apple -> ~john.........Look at it like WHAT GARUNTEES WHAT. John never ever ate an apple. So If you got john, you know that sure as hell he didnt eat no stinken apple. On the flip side, if someone ate an apple, it is GARUNTEED IT WASNT JOHN.
WHAT GARUNTEES DO YOU GET FROM THE statements....Think of the garuntee as the necessary statement fyi

Thanks a bunch. So to make sure, when you see NEVER, negate the second part aka the necessary condition.

[vicpin5190]

I know we went over this during a review, but could someone help me out again.

I'm trying to just memorize it because I have to think about it every time and that takes too long. I don't know why this messes me up so much.

Logical Reasoning. Use of NEVER, CAN'T for conditional statements? How to diagram?

John NEVER ate apples: Ate apples -> ~John and/or John -> ~Ate Apples. Correct?

Robots CAN'T think: Robot -> ~Think and/or Think -> ~Robot Correct?

1st. John -> ~apples. Contrapositive: Apple -> ~john.........Look at it like WHAT GARUNTEES WHAT. John never ever ate an apple. So If you got john, you know that sure as hell he didnt eat no stinken apple. On the flip side, if someone ate an apple, it is GARUNTEED IT WASNT JOHN.
WHAT GARUNTEES DO YOU GET FROM THE statements....Think of the garuntee as the necessary statement fyi

Thanks a bunch. So to make sure, when you see NEVER, negate the second part aka the necessary condition.

i like this notation: John <-/-> Apples. You know from that that If it is John, he isn't having an apple, and if the person is having apples, then it isn't John.

[bombaysippin]

I know we went over this during a review, but could someone help me out again.

I'm trying to just memorize it because I have to think about it every time and that takes too long. I don't know why this messes me up so much.

Logical Reasoning. Use of NEVER, CAN'T for conditional statements? How to diagram?

John NEVER ate apples: Ate apples -> ~John and/or John -> ~Ate Apples. Correct?

Robots CAN'T think: Robot -> ~Think and/or Think -> ~Robot Correct?

1st. John -> ~apples. Contrapositive: Apple -> ~john.........Look at it like WHAT GARUNTEES WHAT. John never ever ate an apple. So If you got john, you know that sure as hell he didnt eat no stinken apple. On the flip side, if someone ate an apple, it is GARUNTEED IT WASNT JOHN.
WHAT GARUNTEES DO YOU GET FROM THE statements....Think of the garuntee as the necessary statement fyi

Thanks a bunch. So to make sure, when you see NEVER, negate the second part aka the necessary condition.

i like this notation: John <-/-> Apples. You know from that that If it is John, he isn't having an apple, and if the person is having apples, then it isn't John.

Whoa, I never thought of it like that...the whole bi conditional kind of thing. Thanks for the input.

[goldenboy514]

I know we went over this during a review, but could someone help me out again.

I'm trying to just memorize it because I have to think about it every time and that takes too long. I don't know why this messes me up so much.

Logical Reasoning. Use of NEVER, CAN'T for conditional statements? How to diagram?

John NEVER ate apples: Ate apples -> ~John and/or John -> ~Ate Apples. Correct?

Robots CAN'T think: Robot -> ~Think and/or Think -> ~Robot Correct?

1st. John -> ~apples. Contrapositive: Apple -> ~john.........Look at it like WHAT GARUNTEES WHAT. John never ever ate an apple. So If you got john, you know that sure as hell he didnt eat no stinken apple. On the flip side, if someone ate an apple, it is GARUNTEED IT WASNT JOHN.
WHAT GARUNTEES DO YOU GET FROM THE statements....Think of the garuntee as the necessary statement fyi

Thanks a bunch. So to make sure, when you see NEVER, negate the second part aka the necessary condition.

I honestly dont think of it in a technical sense, and dont try and use memory techniques or word positions. My method is how lsat trainer would describe it, just use ur noggin and analyze the statement. If John never eats apples, you know that John will never put an apple in his mouth. So whatever they give you, the other wont follow. John GUARANTEES that apple will not be eaten, eaten apple GUARANTEEs it wasnt john. I look at conditionals in terms of sufficient and necessary, and when given a condition, what garuntee (necessary) ensues from the arrow.

EX. John never goes to the mall on saturday
Think in normal terms...John will never been at the mall if its a saturday. Any other day, all bets are off. But i can guarantee he wont be at the mall saturday.
OK, from this I can get 2 garuntees, or too conditions.
1. John went to the mall ----> NOT SATURDAY
I told you that John wont go to the mall on saturday, so IF HE DID go to the mall, IT WASNT ON A DAMN SATURDAY
2. Saturday --> Johns didnt go to the mall
Again, if its saturday, I just told you he wont be at the damn mall

False Logic:
1. NOT SATURDAY --> John went to the mall
Just because its not a saturday, doesnt mean he went to the mall. Hes not going to the mall 6 days a week, and he only said he wont go on saturdays. I never told you he will go the other 6 days
2. John didnt go to the mall --> Saturday
I told you he wont go on a saturday. IF he didnt go, thats not because its a saturday. He could have been sick on a monday, or it could be for any other reason.

Take what they give you, tell me what inferences you can logically make from the conditions. These examples are basic to everyday life, but complicated LR questions get tricky. I love using the word guarantee in my logical methods, and think "OK, WHAT GUARANTEE DOES THIS CONDITIONAL give me.

FYI did a whole semi lesson on this here (just noticed Otunga chimed in here as well with me:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=214138

[bombaysippin]

+13948394 Goldenboy

Thanks a bunch.

[esther0123]

I am so filled with self-doubt. Someone help me. After being rocked October, I don't know what to expect anymore and I can't tell if I improved within a month... is anyone else feeling the same?

Edit: also, does anyone know of successful Oct-Dec Retake story?

[dosto]

.

[Otunga]

I am so filled with self-doubt. Someone help me. After being rocked October, I don't know what to expect anymore and I can't tell if I improved within a month... is anyone else feeling the same?

Edit: also, does anyone know of successful Oct-Dec Retake story?

Sure, but also, I'm making sure my approach is more methodical. I feel I'd get lazy with my process and, for example, eliminate answers for inadequate reasons, or perhaps even on 'hunches', which can obviously lead to one picking trap answer choices. Mike's Trainer really reinforces the point that you can't do this. If you want to be a high scorer, you stay methodical. Some questions are exceptions to this (MBT, some formal logic etc.), but by and large, this matters, and it's helped me maintain my confidence as well.

[snagglepuss]

WHY IS THIS POAL STILL UP???

and why is 3.9-4.0 winning?

[062914123]

.

[Thorcogan]

Listen to JY's comments in the beginning of Theaters explanation for LG motivation

omg no dont tempt me. im trying not to watch any explanations for 70 lg so when i redo it i can get as close as possible to the real deal

same exact boat lol. seeing as i went -6 on theatres...........

If you, or anyone wants to discuss, I went through the theaters game on test day without a problem, and on my retake I actually finished it the second fastest out of the games (7:15)

My diagram was what made it so easy for me, so many you guys didn't have an ideal setup. Anyway since it seems you want to be fresh I won't say more, but if u do want to talk about it, just PM me.

EDIT: what did JY say about the theatre game? If other ppl don't want it discussed, could u PM me

[dosto]

.