Top Law Schools

I'm going through the PowerScore LG bible. I swear I am losing it at this point - my brain is fried.

"In order for A to be selected, B must be selected"

per answer key it is A---->B Wouldnt it be B ---->A
It seems so simple but I swear, it just does not make sense to me...? For some reason this exact wording completely messes me up.

if A, then B. because B has to be there in order for A to be there. so if A exists, then you know B must exist as well

the answer in the book is right....obviously

whatever comes before the words "must be selected" is the necessary condition (on the right side of the arrow)

if you're studying for the test next week, make sure to scale back this week and if you can bear it, don't do any studying thursday or friday

thank you guys,

yup, test is this Sat.. we'll see what happens

44135 wrote:"In order for A to be selected, B must be selected"

Think about it like this: If B is not selected can A be selected?
If A is not selected can B be selected?

Or if that does not help think about it like this

If A is selected, must B be selected?

If B is selected, Must B be selected?

44135 wrote:thank you guys,

yup, test is this Sat.. we'll see what happens

not trying to be a dick or anything, but if basic concepts like diagramming aren't second nature to you at this point, i'd pull an absence and take it in June. I'm not a fan of the first LSAT being the Feb (undisclosed) test anyway. My 2 cents...it's up to you.

99.9luft wrote:

44135 wrote:thank you guys,

yup, test is this Sat.. we'll see what happens

not trying to be a dick or anything, but if basic concepts like diagramming aren't second nature to you at this point, i'd pull an absence and take it in June. I'm not a fan of the first LSAT being the Feb (undisclosed) test anyway. My 2 cents...it's up to you.

+1 only I would take and cancel. If you cant diagram the above I dont see how you could break 160

44135 wrote:I'm going through the PowerScore LG bible. I swear I am losing it at this point - my brain is fried.

"In order for A to be selected, B must be selected"

per answer key it is A---->B Wouldnt it be B ---->A
It seems so simple but I swear, it just does not make sense to me...? For some reason this exact wording completely messes me up.

A is sufficient for B to be selected, but it is not necessary for B to be selected.

On the other hand, "in order for A to be selected," B is necessary.

Thus, you have A-->B. If A is there, you know that B has to be there.

Don't listen to the negativity, you'll realize before long that these message boards are a double-edged sword: they provide motivation and good advice but you're also bound to run into highly anal/scared/jerks who make mountains out of things. Also notice that in the LSAT forum many posters, in hardcore-LSAT mode, begin writing like the LSAT and picking apart each other's arguments as if it's a stimulus on PT50.

The wording is a bit counterintuitive but remember, must--> necessary. I recommend you revisit the sufficient/necessary indicators in the LRB.

rubydandun wrote:Don't listen to the negativity, you'll realize before long that these message boards are a double-edged sword: they provide motivation and good advice but you're also bound to run into highly anal/scared/jerks who make mountains out of things. Also notice that in the LSAT forum many posters, in hardcore-LSAT mode, begin writing like the LSAT and picking apart each other's arguments as if it's a stimulus on PT50.

dude, no one was trying to tear him down. I dont see how one can do the games if they dont understand the rules. I was trying to be helpfull.

Ignatius Reilly wrote:

rubydandun wrote:Don't listen to the negativity, you'll realize before long that these message boards are a double-edged sword: they provide motivation and good advice but you're also bound to run into highly anal/scared/jerks who make mountains out of things. Also notice that in the LSAT forum many posters, in hardcore-LSAT mode, begin writing like the LSAT and picking apart each other's arguments as if it's a stimulus on PT50.

dude, no one was trying to tear him down. I dont see how one can do the games if they dont understand the rules. I was trying to be helpful.

Knowledge of how to spell basic words FTW!

rubydandun wrote:Don't listen to the negativity, you'll realize before long that these message boards are a double-edged sword: they provide motivation and good advice but you're also bound to run into highly anal/scared/jerks who make mountains out of things. Also notice that in the LSAT forum many posters, in hardcore-LSAT mode, begin writing like the LSAT and picking apart each other's arguments as if it's a stimulus on PT50.

The wording is a bit counterintuitive but remember, must--> necessary. I recommend you revisit the sufficient/necessary indicators in the LRB.

there was no negativity whatsoever, just friendly advice.

but now, there is: you, my friend, are an idiot.

paulinaporizkova wrote:

Ignatius Reilly wrote:

rubydandun wrote:Don't listen to the negativity, you'll realize before long that these message boards are a double-edged sword: they provide motivation and good advice but you're also bound to run into highly anal/scared/jerks who make mountains out of things. Also notice that in the LSAT forum many posters, in hardcore-LSAT mode, begin writing like the LSAT and picking apart each other's arguments as if it's a stimulus on PT50.

dude, no one was trying to tear him down. I dont see how one can do the games if they dont understand the rules. I was trying to be helpful.

Knowledge of how to spell basic words FTW!

I've found myself second guessing the basics in the last few days. It doesn't mean you're not prepared. More than likely it means you're stressed, tired, and need a break. After taking two prep tests today, and bombing both of them, I realized that I'm just killing myself. It's not that I don't know the material, but I've pushed myself to the brink. At this point, it seems like you might be at that point also. Take it easy, practice a little on Mon-Wed, and take Thursday and Friday off.

Good luck!

99.9luft wrote:

rubydandun wrote:Don't listen to the negativity, you'll realize before long that these message boards are a double-edged sword: they provide motivation and good advice but you're also bound to run into highly anal/scared/jerks who make mountains out of things. Also notice that in the LSAT forum many posters, in hardcore-LSAT mode, begin writing like the LSAT and picking apart each other's arguments as if it's a stimulus on PT50.

The wording is a bit counterintuitive but remember, must--> necessary. I recommend you revisit the sufficient/necessary indicators in the LRB.

there was no negativity whatsoever, just friendly advice.

but now, there is: you, my friend, are an idiot.

HEY NOW, let's all take a breather.

I know the feeling. If you give your brain a few days of rest afterwards, youll be surprised at how much easier it gets.

44135 wrote:I'm going through the PowerScore LG bible. I swear I am losing it at this point - my brain is fried.

"In order for A to be selected, B must be selected"

per answer key it is A---->B Wouldnt it be B ---->A
It seems so simple but I swear, it just does not make sense to me...? For some reason this exact wording completely messes me up.

/=Negation
The contrapositive is /B---->/A