Tag Archive: Conditional Statements

/ / / / / /

How to Diagram Ornery “Only” Logical Reasoning Questions

If only the LSAT would stick with easy-to-diagram conditional statements like “if it’s a carrot, then it’s a vegetable”, or “if I get Mike Tyson’s tattoo, I’ll forever regret it.”

Alas, your Logical Reasoning section will rarely be quite so friendly. You’ll be nailed with parallel flaws, double negatives, “EXCEPT” questions and, most of all, lots of diagramming. So, to perfect your diagramming skills, we’re launching a series of articles that will cover some of the trickier elements of conditional statements.

Up first: “Only” Questions.

If memorization is your forte, then remember simply that “only” always introduces a necessary condition. As in “the only time you’ll see ‘only’ on LR is when it is introducing the proposition that is guaranteed by the sufficient condition.”

/ / / / / / / /

Level Up Your LSAT Diagramming Skills With This Fun Quiz

Knowing how to diagram conditional claims is essential for every scored section of the LSAT. In LSAT Logical Reasoning, you have to diagram conditional claims very often with Must Be True, Must Be False, Could Be True, Sufficient, Necessary, Flaw, Parallel, and Parallel Flaw question types. In LSAT Logic Games, you’ll make some very nasty mistakes by incorrectly diagraming conditional rules. Finally, in LSAT Reading Comprehension, main points can be conditional, and many other question types will also depend on your ability to diagram.

All diagramable questions have very tempting sucker choices. This is because diagraming mistakes are easy to predict. So, an incorrect anticipation will probably show up in your answer choices. This makes diagramable questions pretty difficult.

/ / / / /

Tricky LSAT Phrases to Keep an Eye Out For

The skills that the LSAT tests are complicated and difficult to learn. Whether it’s diagramming conditional statements, assembling the setup to a game, or knowing what to pay attention to in reading comp, this stuff ain’t easy. But what can make things even harder is when the LSAT buries these already-confusing concepts in perplexing linguistic phrasings.

Luckily, we’re here to help.

When you read something on the LSAT that you don’t understand, the worst thing you can possibly do is just move on, hoping the exam won’t ask about it; it will. Often times, understanding a confusing phrase just involves rereading it a few times and rolling it around in your head. But there are a few phrases that the LSAT uses again and again that students regularly get tripped up on. I’ve compiled a few for you here:

/ / / / /

Nothing Puts You in the Holiday Spirit Like LSAT Diagramming

Knowing how to identify and diagram conditional relationships is necessary for doing well on the LSAT (That is, If Do Well on LSAT -> Know how to Diagram); they are seen throughout Logical Reasoning and many of the most confusing rules in Logic Games are often conditional. If you misrepresent one of these rules, it is quite literally game over.

Learning to diagram properly may be difficult at first, and rightly so, as you’re essentially learning a new language, that of logic, but if you master this vital skill early in class you’ll have an excellent foundation for understanding future, more difficult concepts. Below are a number of harder conditional diagramming drills to help you learn this vitally important skill. Try and diagram every conditional relationship you encounter and infer any supported conclusions.

/ / /

Are You Implying Something!?

If you’re at the beginning of your LSAT odyssey (and a bunch of you no doubt are), then you’re just learning about implication questions. That is, you’re examining the techniques to tackle questions where the correct answer choice is based on what can or cannot be logically proven by the stimulus.

This is the first place where many get tripped up. They fight the stimulus. The stimulus will say that “all people who drink beer wear pants,” but just last weekend a friend of theirs drank lots of beer and (you guessed it) hastily disrobed. You cannot take this attitude into an implication question and expect to do well (no matter how entertaining your drunk friends are).

/ / /

Diagramming Conditional Statements on the LSAT

The LSAT is a rough test, and one of the roughest things that the LSAT tests is your conditional statement aptitude. Sufficiency and necessity are all over the test, and the LSAT often requires you to diagram such things. It’s daunting at first, but diagramming is definitely something that can be mastered on the LSAT. Below are specifics of the test that people struggle with, and some corresponding tips.

/ / /

LSAT Study: Smart Drug + Genius = Oh Sh*t…

So they asked me to write something about an LSAT-related topic I’ve been thinking about.  So, being friendly-neighborhood-Trent, I complied.  Then they asked for another one, and so I popped another one out.

Problem is that I might not have considered the relationship between the content contained therein.

In class, I always have an impossible time trying to convince people that there are many conditional claims they’ve accepted as true, and yet have failed to conjoin.