Understanding LSAT Logic
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2024
- New videos now available! Check out the updated series for the August 2024 (and beyond) test here:
• The New Insight LSAT P...
---
The second lesson of the FREE LSAT prep course offered by Insight LSAT. This is a comprehensive course for LSAT preparation, taught by an instructor who scored 179 on the LSAT. We go through every section, providing expert advice, strategies, illustrations of methods, and more!
In this lesson, we discuss fundamental logic skills that will be useful on all sections of the LSAT.
Topics include:
- logical consequence
- logical sequence vs. textual sequence
- the "so" test
- intermediate conclusions
- necessary and sufficient assumptions (conditionals)
- negation
- numerical words and phrases
- symbolic logic
- contrapositives
Hi everyone! The original Insight LSAT Prep Course, launched in 2017, is now outdated. I have released a new series of eight videos that is updated for the modern test and incorporates all that I've learned tutoring since I released the original videos almost a decade ago.
ruclips.net/p/PLafC0Olll40wXlcvb3JrIO1jkxuPJvz5D
Thank you for all the support over the years. I hope you enjoy the new series.
-Albert
Thank you Lord for the other side of RUclips …I no longer watch music videos, I must study for the LSAT! This guy is awesome! 🎉2024🎉
i’m right with you ! we got this
@@laurynfarleywe will be lawyers 🎉 GOOD LUCK!!!
All Aboard, I had to physically get myself to change the habit
Let’s crush this test!!!!
Let do it guys and make him proud
the "so" test has busted this shit open for me. thanks!
Right!! that made all the difference.
How could anyone dislike this video? It truly lays the foundation for development and improvement in all 3 subjects. Albert is an incredible teacher! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and posting this lesson.
Have you written your LSAT and how was it ?
For me it was his voice. Your comment made me click the dislike button because its very obvious not a presidential or militant voice but one of a kid learning through teaching using his shy microphone skills. I'm sure you aced the logical reasoning.
@@parzer0 for me.. That’s exactly WHY I am sticking around for the next… I love his delivery!! I’m sure if a militant person was explaining all these symbols I might not understand so easily. He doesn’t assume you know anything.
@@parzer0you posh bimbo
the people who disliked it sold competing courses. Then got outdone, for free.
The “so rule” is golden! I’ve always been taught that whenever there is a “therefore” find out what it’s there for (finding premises that support or lead to the conclusion).
I made a 144 the first time I took the LSAT just by watching the first couple of these videos. and that is after a trip to Vegas. I made a 136 after paying 1800 for one of those supposed prep courses.... which goes to show you the difference
Wow youre amazing at explaining these complex logical relationships in a way that anyone can pick up on. Thank you for taking the time to create these videos and making this available for free
This video has helped me soooooo much. You can't even begin to understand! This is what everyone should watch before even studying anything for the LSAT. Your teaching style makes it so easy to pay attention to,and understand what I'm learning, thus keeping me fully engaged the whole entire time. Thank you so much I cannot wait to watch the rest.
I really enjoyed this lesson your teaching style fits my learning style I’d pay for a whole course
I was told about the LSAT from a lawyer, who told me it'd needed for law school. Soooo, I tried it without knowledge. I was lost. Then I found this video. Wow!
I went back to the test, and although, its approach is new to me, I had a better understanding. Thank you,
You are awesome..thank you so much for this. I have been procrastinating taking the LSAT for many many many years...i am now 40 yrs old and fully committed/motivated to reach my goals. Thank for helping with this journey!!
thanks for sharing. i am 34 and have been the same way...procrastinating. what's the latest on your journey?
@@MsBdoll87 I'm 30 here & an ESL that means I'm second speaker of English, so it's a little burdensome as language could be a barrier, but that tutor knows how to guide & show the way to success. & yeah, I'm just like you procrastinating due to circumstances out of my hands.
Wow! I'm at the age now and I'm considering law school. I should have attended right after graduating. Did you attend law school!? If so how is it going?!
Hi, I scored 162 on practice test but want to do better. this vid is awesome to get my my crazy thoughts logical!
This is fantastic. Thank you so much! Understanding these symbols and their application is going to help me exponentially
I took a diagnostic test before watching this video and was tripping up on some logic games questions because I was spending too much time rereading the conditions and scenario, your methods have helped me so much and made me realize the amount of time I could have saved when doing those logic games.
Amazing lesson, thank you for taking the time to explain all these to us. I really learnt a lot!
I finally caught on and was able to understand it as he went on. I got the majority of them correct. Thank you for explaining it the way you did.
Working through these over the next week. Bless your soul.
im a grade 10 student in legal studies, we are doing a Lsat (for marks) and these videos help a lot thanks!
OMG.. I"m so excited!! Thank you for putting this together!!
These videos are excellent, and I suggest anyone looking to raise some points go through the entire lesson plan!
I feel pumped after watching this video. Thank you for such a great video.
I love it! Thank you for all the great exercises and help!
Thank you for putting this program together. Helps me study the LSAT.
I work full time and I hope this works for high scores!!!
This was really fun. Nailed it too. Thanks!
Love the way you teach! Thank you very much! Love this!
Every lesson Insight LSAT teaches is excellent. I'm watching one of those lessons.
I can conclude that I am watching an excellent lesson. 🙂
Best LSAT video I have seen so far thanks 👍👍👍
These videos are very helpful and study tips to help prepare me for the LSAT test. I plan to take it either this year or next year for sure, I hope I do a good job.
Taking the LSAT this summer, thanks for your course
This was so so helpful! Thank you for uploading this :D
Thank you for making such a great video!
Wow I am actually understanding and getting this...Exciting....ty for sharing
this is really helpful and i really like the way you teach. thank you so much!
Learned a great deal. Thank you.
I have watched a lot of videos, yours is the only one so far that explained thing in a very clear and understandable way.
Very true! I took a course in college, but all they did was send me some practice books that made no sense until I started watching these videos, but now I will understand my PrepTest books a lot better!
Same!!!!
WOW, thank you so much for these lessons; I've a LSAT to write on Monday July 4. Very sure this would help me 🙏
how did it go??
my first time trying these out, seems complicated but pretty straight forward with some practice.
Amazing Stuff! It has helped me so much!
this channel is a gem
Thank you…. not sure yet how it applies to the LSAT!! But I appreciate this before I pay for my tutor and take any practice exams!!
Very helpful & kind, thank you.
Excellent! Thank you!
Great video got me thinking logically now I'm a keep working at it everyday from now on
John Givens You can start by practicing basic English grammar.
@@criminalscum8472 shut the fuck up
i was so scared for the LSAT exam. Thank you so much sir, this video has made me very easy to study now.
Great video. Watching this after I took a cold diagnostic test and I can see how much of the symbolic representations especially might have been useful during the test. A suggestion: on the slide on numerical proportions, it might be more accurate/clearer to say 50%< than 51%+ etc.
I agree. Change it to >= or
This is an important point. There is a lot of territory between 51% and 49%. 50% + 1 is one way I was taught. Even that is too broad. >50% is the most correct, I imagine.
Great resource so far
I took a logic course a couple years ago so this all makes sense to me
Lol
Thank you so much for the help!!! God bless you!! ❤️
thank you & thanks to RUclips..
Good video for LSAT prep. At 58:06 there's a false statement. Echidnas and the duck billed platypus are both mammals and both lay eggs.
I'm struggling but this is a really good video. Like excellent.
Amazing videos.
I can't believe how much I love this shit!
The Tom example...heartbroken Tom..Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. And LuluLemon....love the puns
oh wow! I didn't even pick that up. Great eye!
In response to the negation of "If you prepare for the LSAT, you will do well... ", instead of filling in random bubbles and doing well, it might just make perfect sense to you.
you just made the introduction easy
Thank you so much bro
Falsifying numerical statements - "a few sandwiches remain." A few may refer to 2+ but it also implies a limit, not many therefore we can say 0 -1 sandwiches or there is an abundance (non-countable but in excessive of a few)
Thanks! Your videos are great!!!
Thank you too!
You’re my hero! 💯
“So test”
Very nice!
Hi! Thanks for the video. In the example "If many people attend the party, we will need to hire a server", you said the negation is "If we don't need to hire a server, then ..." I was wondering what the implication of "if we don't need to hire a server" is. Does that mean we don't hire any servers, or does it mean that you don't hire A server (either no servers or many servers)?
Very good practice
OMG, this is gold
If nobody helps, I am going to quit. H --> Q ¬Q --> ¬H. I put ¬H ---> Q, as in nobody helped (¬H). Is there a logical fallacy that I am not connecting if I do it this way. My contrapositive ended up looking like this: ¬Q -> H (at least one person helped). Seems like I'm saying the same thing, but making sure I didn't miss something.
Same thing I just did in my head!
'Nobody helps" is already a negation of Help and so, it will be --, H---> Q contrapositive is --, Q--> H. ( 0-1)
amazing thank you
Thanks!
Thank you
I should've watched these videos while I was taking symbolic logic lol. Also, can confirm, symbolic logic was way harder than the material I've seen on the LSAT so far haha
Question. At 9:34 you present the "so test" on the paragraph regarding taking the LSATs. I see another conclusion as "so, practicing LSAT questions is an effective way of improving your LSAT score." Why is this not the conclusion? This seems as logical as "so, time spent practicing LSAT questions is thus time well spent." It seems that the only indicator to pick one over the other is that " time spent practicing LSAT questions is thus time well spent." is a more general conclusion. Is this test something that should be added to the final determination of which conclusion is the final conclusion? The more general the conclusion, the more final it is.
I went for NotP instead of C because in this scenario the parade (P) would not have happened if it had rained (R)
So helpful
Amazing
thanks for the vid i like it i will get THAT LSAT WOOOO
so when writing counter positives you always have to negate the conjunctions and the disconjunctions from both sides in all cases? correct
Would the contrapositive of the Sam Bart Alex portion be;
If not Bart ^(and) Alex -> not Walking -> not enough Time v(or) not Sam. ???
Edit:
If not B ^ A > not W > not T v S
I had a question about the falsifying numerical statements. On the most of the questions, is it possible to say all or because “all” was not used in the PowerPoint prior, it can not be used as an answer?
Ex- some children dance translates to “it’s not the case that some children dance. The only answer that was given was 0-1 children dance. Can “all”also be used?
In the example of conditionals with "only", I get the first statement "I will attend ONLY if I can afford it, to which you offer a counter thought of: You may not go even if you CAN afford it. Great I get that. But in the boiling water example you don't offer a counter thought. Is there one? "Only if enough heat is applied to it does water boil". So that's definitely a necessary condition, but how is that not sufficient?
At 1:12:00 would writing the symbols (neg)H ---> Q, with the second being (neg)Q ---> H be correct? When speaking out loud I read as If I don't quit, at least one person helped.
When can I find more exercises like this one ? I am having trouble negating.
@35:11 water can boil if pressure is low enough, too. Does this example assume this as well?
for the Q (if nobody helps, I am going to quit) I wrote it as (no H > Q) then the opposite ( 1+ Q > H) meaning I interpret no bady helps as a negative scenario. I'm not sure if it's only another way or it going to affect the result in more complicated situations
On the Tom and Erica one. I got "the assumption is that he WILL," when nothing says a plan is the same as execution. Is that the same as saying what you said, that she never said no, because nothing said he never asked her?
@59:13 when I read that sentence I right away thought of Pink Floyd haha
i have a question: in the practice section at the end of the video, in the symbolic logic of "if nobody helps, i will quit..." shouldn't the symbol for help be positive? without the negation symbol? idkw i'm not getting that.
would really love to know what i misunderstood!
thanks
1:11:55 can you explain why you wouldn't negate H in the last question in the initial answer? I negated it because of the word "nobody" and then in the contrapositive there was no negation for H. I hope this makes sense!
Questions:
1. Isn't the missing piece the assumption that Tom will ask her out, not that she will say no if he does? The former isn't explicitly stated, while the latter is.
2. The Lu sisters could own a lemon tree and the entire argument could be junk. This feels like a more blatant missing logic leap than the one you pointed out with Tom's broken heart.
What am I not understanding?
(Also, thank you for these videos!!)
Abra Morgan I’m no expert, but the concepts of symbolic logic don’t pick up these nuances of language. You treat every statement as a truth
There was reference to a free worksheet on the website, however, I do not see it. Does anyone know where this worksheet is? PS This is a great video series! Thanks for sharing them.
PSS If anyone else is prepping for the LSAT now, I would be happy to do a study group even if by Facetime etc.
I know it's late, I hope this is the correct one. www.insightlsat.com/worksheet
for practice at 59:35. I think it should be K--D, seems if K does, D does. If you do D--K, it would be D does, as a result , K does. Right?! So answer should be -D --- -K
Hi, on the practice problems, the one that says "if nobody helps, I am going to quit" you started with H--> Q shouldn't it be a negated -H first since its nobody helps and the negated version would be somebody helped.
I really like your videos by the way. They are very helpful.
In the symbols part, you treat "plans to" as "will." How is that going to help?
1:06:00
Please advise Why is it not Jan or Kyle instead of Jan and Kyle?
Since it was originally a disjunction??
Very good
Can you explain why these are the conclusions? The LSAT question I didn’t understand why exactly it was “Time spent practicing LSAT questions is this time well spent”
I apologize if you already answered - on the conditions w/only...the water boiling example, you never explain why it’s not sufficient. The “will attend only” made things very clear but what is insufficient of the heat/water one. Please and thank you
I have about 4 months studying for. take LSAT text .$275. I have to pay at the University for takes at January .It's interesting to. see the difference between what the University Professor tauch. about How to do An Investigation and What the Tutor present here Ex.Resolve case Technic by Reasoning games and do differents diagrams.But they never used the Process of Scientific Methodology of Investigation..We learned .
I have a question regarding the conditional "only" example of: "only if enough heat is applied to it does water boil."
This might be a matter of interpretation but when I read "enough heat" im assuming its suggesting that there is "enough heat to get water to boil" in which case applying "enough heat" to water to get it to boil would make it both necessary and sufficient to get water to boil which would make it an "if and only if" statement as opposed to an "only" statement.
Can someone explain why I am wrong or if I just interpreting this differently? He didnt spend a lot of time answering that example.
I am confused about this too, does anyone have an explanation?
question: at 19:22, the exercise with Erica and Tom. Could the intermediate conclusion be: Erica will say no, excluding ?
thats exactly what bothered me about this. to say "she will definitely say no" and " she will say no tomorrow" are very close to the same thing. I don't see why that intermediate conclusion is necessary.
The argument is all about what's going to happen tomorrow, so we have to keep that in there.
Isn't the negation of some "none" (and the same for "a few")?