Does the LR Bible explain Formal Logic/Quantifiers well? Forum

[notaznguy]

I have a lot of homework to do for my Testmasters course, but I''m wondering if I should take the time to go over the LR Bible's Formal Logic chapter.

Now before you say "oh you shouldn't overlap things," I should first mention that I have gone over most of the Bible before, but skipped the FL section. Furthermore, it appears that TM and PS have very similar methods.

The main reason I'm turning to the Bible is because TM's method of teaching Formal Logic/quantifiers was total garbage. I learned nothing. It was pretty much, "Come on, you get it or you don't. Let me give you an example, but oh wait, don't forget, examples don't always work in this concept." Very useful -___-;; The only other method they gave me was Venn Diagrams.

I don't understand Formal Logic and I'm hoping that the Bible will be my savior. In your experience, did it teach you well about the concept?

[glucose101]

Conditional logic?

[Jeffort]

OP: I call user error.

There is a chapter about conditional reasoning in both the LRB and the LGB. You decided not to read them and are asking if you should! Those books also provide homework, drills and question by question/drill by drill explanations in the HW portions about it.

TM classes also provide additional -for out of class HW/study/review time- drills and explanations about it, even down to directed explanations that explain and apply the basics to particular questions & drills in audio/video as well as written form.

Perhaps you should get a tutor? or if you cannot afford one, at least use the TM helpline if you are currently enrolled in a class? Your problem is not due to lack of available instruction about the basic concepts.

[notaznguy]

OP: I call user error.

There is a chapter about conditional reasoning in both the LRB and the LGB. You decided not to read them and are asking if you should! Those books also provide homework, drills and question by question/drill by drill explanations in the HW portions about it.

TM classes also provide additional -for out of class HW/study/review time- drills and explanations about it, even down to directed explanations that explain and apply the basics to particular questions & drills in audio/video as well as written form.

Perhaps you should get a tutor? or if you cannot afford one, at least use the TM helpline if you are currently enrolled in a class? Your problem is not due to lack of available instruction about the basic concepts.

Are you sure you are understanding what I'm talking about?

I do understand conditional reasoning, or "If...then" arguments. What I wasn't understanding was:

Premise: Some A's are B's
Premise: All B's are C's
Conclusion: Some A's are C's

The Bible's conditional reasoning chapter didn't cover words such as "Some" or "Most." Oh well it doesn't matter now, I posted this thread hours ago and during that time I already went over the LR chapter on Formal Logic.

[mickeyD]

TM absolutely sucks when it comes to "Some" and "Most." They want you to use Venn diagrams and memorize "templates." Their system involves memorizing which situations involving the "bridge variable" allow you to make inferences. It works, but isn't the best.

Powerscore's "Some Train" and "Most Train" is the best method out there for this. It seems a little silly at first, but once you get it down, you can quickly answer questions involving quantifiers.

No I don't work for PS, I know this because I took a TM class and supplemented it with the Bibles.

[notaznguy]

TM absolutely sucks when it comes to "Some" and "Most." They want you to use Venn diagrams and memorize "templates." Their system involves memorizing which situations involving the "bridge variable" allow you to make inferences. It works, but isn't the best.

Powerscore's "Some Train" and "Most Train" is the best method out there for this. It seems a little silly at first, but once you get it down, you can quickly answer questions involving quantifiers.

No I don't work for PS, I know this because I took a TM class and supplemented it with the Bibles.

Great to hear some confirmation on this. That is exactly what my instructor did. Bridge variables and venn diagrams. F*cking bullsh*t. Half the class was lost by the end of the lesson and still had no idea how to do it.

I just went over the Formal Logic chapter a few hours ago, and PS's train method made a whole lot more sense since it was much more systematic.

[Jeffort]

OP: I call user error.

There is a chapter about conditional reasoning in both the LRB and the LGB. You decided not to read them and are asking if you should! Those books also provide homework, drills and question by question/drill by drill explanations in the HW portions about it.

TM classes also provide additional -for out of class HW/study/review time- drills and explanations about it, even down to directed explanations that explain and apply the basics to particular questions & drills in audio/video as well as written form.

Perhaps you should get a tutor? or if you cannot afford one, at least use the TM helpline if you are currently enrolled in a class? Your problem is not due to lack of available instruction about the basic concepts.

Are you sure you are understanding what I'm talking about?

I do understand conditional reasoning, or "If...then" arguments. What I wasn't understanding was:

Premise: Some A's are B's
Premise: All B's are C's
Conclusion: Some A's are C's

The Bible's conditional reasoning chapter didn't cover words such as "Some" or "Most." Oh well it doesn't matter now, I posted this thread hours ago and during that time I already went over the LR chapter on Formal Logic.

Yes, I'm sure I understand what you are talking about. Conditional logic, especially situations in LR questions that involve combinations of quantifiers: All, none, most, many, several, nearly all, some, + a few synonyms in question types that are about deductive logic.

You observations are again incorrect. Your last sentence in bold and large font above proves my point.

PS: Neither PS nor TM nor any other reputable prep source advocates using Venn diagrams to solve LSAT problems that involve combinations of the quantifiers. It is sometimes presented as how NOT to DO it!

[mickeyD]

edit

[notaznguy]

OP: I call user error.

There is a chapter about conditional reasoning in both the LRB and the LGB. You decided not to read them and are asking if you should! Those books also provide homework, drills and question by question/drill by drill explanations in the HW portions about it.

TM classes also provide additional -for out of class HW/study/review time- drills and explanations about it, even down to directed explanations that explain and apply the basics to particular questions & drills in audio/video as well as written form.

Perhaps you should get a tutor? or if you cannot afford one, at least use the TM helpline if you are currently enrolled in a class? Your problem is not due to lack of available instruction about the basic concepts.

Are you sure you are understanding what I'm talking about?

I do understand conditional reasoning, or "If...then" arguments. What I wasn't understanding was:

Premise: Some A's are B's
Premise: All B's are C's
Conclusion: Some A's are C's

The Bible's conditional reasoning chapter didn't cover words such as "Some" or "Most." Oh well it doesn't matter now, I posted this thread hours ago and during that time I already went over the LR chapter on Formal Logic.

Yes, I'm sure I understand what you are talking about. Conditional logic, especially situations in LR questions that involve combinations of quantifiers: All, none, most, many, several, nearly all, some, + a few synonyms in question types that are about deductive logic.

You observations are again incorrect. Your last sentence in bold and large font above proves my point.

PS: Neither PS nor TM nor any other reputable prep source advocates using Venn diagrams to solve LSAT problems that involve combinations of the quantifiers. It is sometimes presented as how NOT to DO it!

Okay fine, you corrected me, I agree. Venn Diagrams are presented as how NOT do DO it. Thank you. That still doesn't mean I don't feel that Testmasters sucked balls at explaining concepts involving quantifiers.