Is anyone able to answer why in the last game N must be in spot 2? It sems like there is an assumption made that is not a rule to place N in spot 2. I see no reason it could not also be in spot 1 or 4
Can you explain in greater detail how (@ about 10:18 in) you arrived at the conclusion that at least one of N&R must be summarized? Why not N & T? How is it that you figured this out because it plays a significant role in answering this question and being able to pick between A and D.
Fantastic vids, thank you so much! I don't know if I'd rather like your vids to have more views because you deserve it, or not to have more views because I don't want too many people to improve too much ^^!
The scale is predetermined I think, based on previous scores when the scenarios/items/passages were introduced on unscored sections, so I don’t think you’re actually competing against current test-takers directly. Hence the enormous cluster of high scores the past couple years.
For Q12, why is it not possible to have NTFOKR? I am confused about how you decided to put F as the beginning variable. What made you put F first? When I read it, I imagined NTF because it states that T is earlier than O, but not immediately. Is looking for action words, such as immediately useful for Logic Games? (@ 10:51)
There's nothing inherently wrong with the sequence NTFOKR. We got rid of (D) because it broke the conditional rule, "If N isn't summarized, then T and R must be summarized". And we didn't put F first. We just eliminated every answer choice that broke a rule, and what was left happened to have F first.
I love your videos! They are super helpful, they really breakdown the questions and help with understanding the why to go about answering questions! Please post more!!!
i guess Im asking the wrong place but does anybody know of a way to get back into an instagram account..? I somehow forgot the login password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me.
@Kyle Yael Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
Yes, it could. The diagram on screen shows, F, N, T, O, K/R, R/K That means that K can be in spot 5 or spot 6. We know if it's spot 5 that it's not summarized, but if it's in spot 6 it could go either way (be summarized or not summarized). The question asked, "which of these answers is impossible?" (D) says that, "It's impossible for K to be not-summarized". We say, "No it isn't. It's possible for K to be not-summarized. Whether it's in spot 5 or spot 6 it *could* be not-summarized." I think your question might come from a place of "D doesn't HAVE to be true". We agree. K doesn't have to be not-summarized. It could be summarized. But the question stem isn't asking us whether (D) is mandatory (D is not mandatory. It's asking us whether (D) is possible (D is possible). Make sense?
I don't get how the rule "If N is not summarized, then both R and T are summarized" automatically allows us to assume what happens when N is summarized. It says nothing about what happens when N is summarized, so how can we assume it? Couldn't you say that "If N is not summarized, then both R and T are summarized, and if N is summarized, then both R and T are not summarized", meaning that you can't have R summarized without T or vice versa? Don't you have to know first whether N was not summarized in order to take the next logical step that R and T were summarized?
I'm confused by some of that. The rule "if N is not summarized, R and T are summarized" *doesn't* let us assume anything in cases where N *is* summarized. Is there some part of the video where you think we're acting like "Since N is summarized, we know ____ ?" We definitely cannot take the rule "~Ns --> Rs and Ts" and think that this also means that "Ns --> ~Rs and ~Ts" that's what we call an Illegal Negation. That's like taking the statement "If you're in NYC, then you're in America" which is true, and thinking that it also means "if you're not in NYC, then you're not in America" which of course is not true. R and T do not have a shared destiny. When N is not summarized, then obviously they both have to be summarized, but when N is summarized, we don't have any rule for R and T. They could both be summarized, both be unsummarized, or either version of "one is, one isn't".
The substitution explanation is the best I've heard.
These videos are incredible! please post more!!!
Thanks for this video you saved me on one of the LSAT games I would have been so lost if I hadn’t watched this
I'm so appreciative of your videos
SUCH GOOD STUFF!
Thank you very much!
very good! Clearly stated the point of each question
Is anyone able to answer why in the last game N must be in spot 2? It sems like there is an assumption made that is not a rule to place N in spot 2. I see no reason it could not also be in spot 1 or 4
Can you explain in greater detail how (@ about 10:18 in) you arrived at the conclusion that at least one of N&R must be summarized? Why not N & T? How is it that you figured this out because it plays a significant role in answering this question and being able to pick between A and D.
Great video, very easy to follow!
Fantastic vids, thank you so much! I don't know if I'd rather like your vids to have more views because you deserve it, or not to have more views because I don't want too many people to improve too much ^^!
The scale is predetermined I think, based on previous scores when the scenarios/items/passages were introduced on unscored sections, so I don’t think you’re actually competing against current test-takers directly. Hence the enormous cluster of high scores the past couple years.
God bless you! Thank You! 👍🏼
For Q12, why is it not possible to have NTFOKR? I am confused about how you decided to put F as the beginning variable. What made you put F first? When I read it, I imagined NTF because it states that T is earlier than O, but not immediately. Is looking for action words, such as immediately useful for Logic Games? (@ 10:51)
There's nothing inherently wrong with the sequence NTFOKR.
We got rid of (D) because it broke the conditional rule, "If N isn't summarized, then T and R must be summarized".
And we didn't put F first. We just eliminated every answer choice that broke a rule, and what was left happened to have F first.
I love your videos! They are super helpful, they really breakdown the questions and help with understanding the why to go about answering questions! Please post more!!!
i guess Im asking the wrong place but does anybody know of a way to get back into an instagram account..?
I somehow forgot the login password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me.
@Torin Adrian instablaster =)
@Kyle Yael Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now.
Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Kyle Yael it worked and I finally got access to my account again. I'm so happy!
Thank you so much, you saved my account !
@Torin Adrian No problem :D
#LSATLabs - Is it always recommended to account for possible inverse responses with #stackedordering ?
#GreysonCassidy 🇺🇲
Around 16:54, couldn’t K be summarized in spot 6?
Yes, it could.
The diagram on screen shows,
F, N, T, O, K/R, R/K
That means that K can be in spot 5 or spot 6. We know if it's spot 5 that it's not summarized, but if it's in spot 6 it could go either way (be summarized or not summarized).
The question asked, "which of these answers is impossible?"
(D) says that, "It's impossible for K to be not-summarized".
We say, "No it isn't. It's possible for K to be not-summarized. Whether it's in spot 5 or spot 6 it *could* be not-summarized."
I think your question might come from a place of "D doesn't HAVE to be true". We agree. K doesn't have to be not-summarized. It could be summarized.
But the question stem isn't asking us whether (D) is mandatory (D is not mandatory. It's asking us whether (D) is possible (D is possible).
Make sense?
The best!
I don't get how the rule "If N is not summarized, then both R and T are summarized" automatically allows us to assume what happens when N is summarized. It says nothing about what happens when N is summarized, so how can we assume it? Couldn't you say that "If N is not summarized, then both R and T are summarized, and if N is summarized, then both R and T are not summarized", meaning that you can't have R summarized without T or vice versa?
Don't you have to know first whether N was not summarized in order to take the next logical step that R and T were summarized?
I'm confused by some of that.
The rule "if N is not summarized, R and T are summarized" *doesn't* let us assume anything in cases where N *is* summarized.
Is there some part of the video where you think we're acting like "Since N is summarized, we know ____ ?"
We definitely cannot take the rule
"~Ns --> Rs and Ts"
and think that this also means that
"Ns --> ~Rs and ~Ts"
that's what we call an Illegal Negation. That's like taking the statement
"If you're in NYC, then you're in America"
which is true,
and thinking that it also means
"if you're not in NYC, then you're not in America"
which of course is not true.
R and T do not have a shared destiny. When N is not summarized, then obviously they both have to be summarized, but when N is summarized, we don't have any rule for R and T. They could both be summarized, both be unsummarized, or either version of "one is, one isn't".