Open Q&A (Intermediate) with Nate

Hey, Ravi, how's going?

How's everything going?

Yeah, you can't just do it once.

Yeah, this is open Q&A today. So why don't we take a look at that? We'll give people a couple more minutes to sign in.

Actually, it's already four or five past the hour.

Yeah, So as always, my name is Nate, just you and I welcome to this live class session, which is open Q&A intermediate.

I'm going to figure out how to share my screen, and we'll get straight into it. So they move the buttons.

think we talked about this on zoom. When you update it, all the share buttons are on the bottom now.

Yeah. I never know where they are anymore.

Um, last cards on the app. Let's take a look here. Let me actually start, um, the question or one app.

I think some of these have flashcards and some don't like.

Yeah, exactly. Take a look here. There's, um, missing premise drills, video, drill. So there's drills. Hold on.

Yeah, that's exactly right. They're in the um, they're in the drill, they're in the chapters, they're in the modules.

Yeah, if I click quantifiers, there's 12 flashcards for argument completion and 12 class fire flashcards for missing premise drills.

Thank you. And then there's I think it's insufficient necessary as well.

Right idea. And do you do the daily drills also?

Yeah, exactly.

If you take a look on the top left here where I click these three lines. Huh, this third one down says daily drills.

Yeah Like every drill I can go through Yeah, so I can click begin today's drill here on the top right Okay But then also if I Take a look.

I've drilled one too. They've only ever done three in sessions here from 2022 to 2023 September 20.

I think you have to still do them one by one, but I think you can do other ones even if it's not how do I get to the other ones is what I'm trying to find.

If I could begin today's drill and I just click through randomly here just real quick. Let me get to the next one immediately.

I'd have to write to the next day.

Uh huh. And I have to wait till the next day for the daily drill again. There's also though. Isn't there drills?

That might be a question for support.

I just want to ask.

then there's these drills to condition S and quantifiers. Yeah. Yeah. Um also hello to Blue Henderson. Just joined us.

It is open Q and A and If want to ask, Radu, you had one more question and then we'll get into any questions or blue address.

Yes. Yes, let's go with that. Great question.

Perfect. So, we can. strengthen. Are doing one thing. At least I don't want ask about parallelism. Perfect. Yeah. We'll go straight into the next.

We're adding a premise. To make the conclusion. Oh, sorry. This is a lesson. likely. Less likely. And then the strength of when I add a premise to make the conclusion more likely.

So what does that mean? means step one. You have to actually diagram or get a sense of the, you have to understand the argument itself.

What is the arguments like breakdown? So we have our premises. And then we have our conclusion. So if this is a weekend question, we're basically adding premise four.

That makes the conclusion less likely over the strength and question of adding premise four. That makes the conclusion more likely.

Is that clear so far?

Okay. So what do we do next? Let's then, as always, in every logical reasoning question that has an argument, you want to identify the flaw and engage with the flaw.

So, if this is their arguments, we always have to ask ourselves, is this true? Or is it flawed? It'll always be flawed on a weak and a strengthened question.

And so what is the flaw? And once we find the flaw, engage with or attack the flaw in your anticipation of the right answer.

Does that make sense as far as I go? Let's go with a really simple one that I'd like to do.

Good. So. As a flaw, the first thing I always check for is, is there an exact match between the facts and the conclusion as it is an airtight argument.

There's nothing new in the conclusion and there's nothing lost from the facts, so imagine this. Here's what I mean by airtight, think we've gone over this before.

If I have premise A, B, and C, premise A, B and C, my conclusion better be A plus B plus C.

It better not have been, if it was premise A, C, D, and I don't use D in the conclusion, I'm missing something.

Or if my conclusion is A, B, C, Z, Z is not up here, it's something new, it's something coming in from outside of the argument, it's not an airtight argument.

So I want an exact match. between the facts and the conclusion and so imagine this let's go into it let's just one and then we'll take a look at a real one imagine I say I live with two roommates Nate and Regu H right yeah last night I heard a noise in the house so I conclude I heard Nate is there an exact match between the facts and it's not really there's not and what's what's going on what's the difference in the facts and what's missing did we do

Perfect. Yeah Good In other words, they didn't address the fact of reviewing the conclusion They didn't eliminate the possibility.

It could have been review. That was the flaw. right. How do you know? was Nate and not right? Exactly right Exactly right So now imagine We're adding fact number three here.

How would we weaken this conclusion? I know we're trying to weaken this conclusion How do we make it more likely that it was right goo and not nate?

Nate was sleeping perfect. Yeah, and how do we strengthen the quiz? How do we strengthen the idea that was Nate and not Regu?

Yeah, you could also said I heard someone TJ and LSAT cloud. right who would heard someone talking about India, like the property that you're working on in India, you know, anything, any fact at all, you know?

Yeah, perfect. Any question on this so far? that clear what the general strategy is?

So I want to add in one more thing here. I can pull up my notes. There's a couple other things I try to look at.

If I can't notice it, if I can't see it, I have little things I prompt myself with to try to see it.

I don't see it like on the first read. On a weekend question, I say to myself, if I can't think of it, like, here's my backup plan, here's my backup, backup prompt.

I say to myself, What if I said to myself, what if it's actually something else, and my other backup prompt is just I negate the conclusion and and then support this negate support the negated conclusion support negated conclusions.

Let's go to these one by one. Like I said, if I can't figure out what's going on, what's the flaw, I can't anticipate a good answer.

What if I said to myself, I read over this, I live with tumor maintain my goo, I heard a noise in the house that I included her Nate.

What if I promise up with what if it's actually something else, what if it actually wasn't Nate, what if it was actually something else.

And the answer, you know, the answer to that prompt is a good anticipation for the right answer. So what if it was actually else?

What else could it be besides Nate? can we answer that question together? What else could it have been besides Nate?

Maybe a neighbor in the house, could have been the house itself or could have been, especially from the facts, it could have been right good, right?

Yeah, perfect. So I tried that prompt, what if it's actually something else? And also try, even if that doesn't work, I just try to negate the conclusion And see if I can find an answer choice that supports the negated conclusion.

So instead of saying, I heard Nate, I negate it. I did not hear Nate. So anything that supports. that I didn't hear Nate would be the right answer to.

In other words, if answer choice A was, I heard a person on the phone with family in India, that supports the idea that you didn't hear Nate you heard someone else.

So this is not the negation test. You're thinking about the negation test in strengths and with sufficient or strength of a necessary premises.

The negation test and strengths of a necessary premises is only after you get through the whole question and you're going through the answer choices and you find the answer that you think is correct.

And you're like, well, not sure. Let me just double check. You negate the answer choice. And if the answer, if the argument above falls apart, after you.

been negated the answer choice below, then that was necessary. It's just a good way to double check. But that's not what we're doing here.

Yeah. And so for a strength and when necessary, you have to negate an answer. We're an answer choice. You can't think of it yourself.

just say, what if it's something else? Or what if it's not a fine one that supports the anti-conclusion and negated conclusion?

Because to weaken this conclusion, like on a philosophical level, would be basically the same thing as supporting the opposite conclusion.

Answer choice that supports the negated conclusion as a choice that supports the negated conclusion, okay? Yeah So an answer choice that supports the conclusion would strengthen the conclusion, right?

it supports the negated conclusion would weaken the conclusion, right?

It's little it's a little What's the word abstract? We'll try a question here in a second Let us just try to diagram that like if it is negated if you if it supports the negated conclusion that it is Support or weakness like I'm trying to get it in my head watch this Let's say I can't figure out how to Anticipate the right answer here.

I heard Nate and I want to weaken. I'm on a weakened question So think okay, let me try to see if I could just figure out what the like let's call it the anti conclusion Uh-huh

and tie conclusion. What's the anti-conclusion? I didn't hear Nate, right? Any answer choice, now if I just go straight to the answer choices, and I find one that supports the anti-conclusion, would strengthen the anti-conclusion, or in other words, it would weaken the real conclusion.

We're kind of creating like, ah, you know, if I can't think of it, what if I just supported the anti-conclusion?

Guard it. Yeah.

We'll try this in just one second too.

I think I got it now. Thank you. For restraint, we're going to add a fact to make the conclusion more likely.

It's just any additional info, even if it seems to be unrelated. And for strength, let's start there. Let's just start there.

Let's just try a couple of questions. Okay. Any questions so far in this blue and Regu?

Thank you. Okay. Let's try a question here.

I want you to show me negating the conclusion. I want you to show me asking yourself. What if it's something else?

Let's try. Bye. Let's just try this one. What is, can you break down this argument for me for us to argue?

And then we're going to go through this one by one. All our different strategies. Can you dive in this for us, Raghir?

Did I talk on mute? Oh, I didn't hear anything. Oh, sorry.

the conclusion. Perfect. Yeah.

Good. Is this a perfect conclusion? Does it perfectly match up the top and the bottom?

Good, okay and if we, that's really good and let's go deeper, if we can't think of it, if we can't see a particular flaw that we're not, we don't feel convinced by, what if we it's actually something else.

So try that now, what if it's actually something else. What if it's not?

Could be hygiene? Good.

Perfect. Great. Now we just find one that matches that. We find one that says it's not the quality of care, but it is something else.

Let's see if we find one that says it's not the quality of care, but it is something else.

That's related to quality of care, right?

Exactly, you got it.

Quality of care, same care was provided in each one good.

So you can take that out, be the answer. You got it. Do you see how just asking yourself what if it's something else helps you nail what the flaw is?

Yeah, really good job. Let's do one strengthening question, then we'll get on to parallel reason.

me find my name too. Okay. Let's try. Yeah, when we try this one. Is this too small? you know what?

Actually, we don't want answer those anyway, so let's start with it out loud. It doesn't matter. Just give us the breakdown.

Good. And is that now 100% true?

No. No, good. why not?

Z is going to sever ties with N because of human rights violations. But counterpoint Z continues to remain in contact contact with other countries.

With worse human rights violations. So, this latest diplomatic move, which is referring to the severing ties with N, right, is not.

only these human rights coming into it is what's the what's the art is every is just an airtight argument perfect matchup between the top and the bottom here no there's a very Z is against and because of human rights is one thing Z against other countries worst so there is some missing factor which is coming into play which might be some other political factor or some other economic rate factor I don't know what right so you already skipping right ahead great so exactly right you're already saying I can already add premise three which is going to be I remember what we want to do in strength and questions we want to add any additional information even if seemingly unrelated that makes the conclusion more likely so any non-human rights factors additional

internal info, exactly, to make the conclusion more likely. Anything that is saying it was not only these commitment to human rights, that makes them cut ties with Nandello or whatever it was called.

Yeah. So can you think, and like you said, you already called it, you said, it may be some other political or diplomatic or whatever reason.

Exactly. So let's see if we find any other reason that they might have cut ties with Nandello and is not human rights related.

Were you talking about A or B?

Yes, this is something else. But that's okay because any additional information, even if seemingly unrelated, this might work. I'm just keeping that aside.

I think I misunderstood what you're saying.

Didn't why?

Even better. Yeah, because it happened after.

Oh, yeah, you're actually you're you're explaining better than mine. Yeah. And I was just thinking it wouldn't be the cause if it's after.

Right. cause couldn't be after the effect.

And, Blue, if you want to weigh in too, please do. Thanks for being so patient as we get to this question first.

Which, let's go back, we always want to re-intensivate because sometimes by the time you get to E, can't forget your anticipation.

Can you remind us of your anticipation, review, or even blue if you want to jump in? What are we looking for?

right is what we are trying to look for good so does which one of those has something besides human rights a or e currently buys recently that's the pseudo district imports imports and something with that and then I see that a yeah what's wrong with e is having that again that human rights factor do you see how when you get down to don't read them back and forth like well what about this what about this go back and re-anticipated because it's easier to forget what you participated by the time you get to the bottom got it yeah really good job great any more question on that no I think I'm good no really good job yeah I can see a lot of improvement in you in the last couple weeks or I do like from last year or whatever you're doing so much better yeah thank you so sweet absolutely so let's move on to blue thanks to your patience talk to me about parallel reasoning blue what what should we take a look at you know it's about parallel reasoning your copy I used it

That's a tough word, Oh, wow. like to learn about etymology. That's a good one to look up at etymology.

Okay, I can't. I'm not a great speller, but learning where the word comes from house to learn to spell.

It's in the Greeks words. Para. Para. Para. Which means. Beside one another. Para meaning beside an alley. Each other beside each other para alley.

Para. Okay. very useful. But it helps me. I'd love to go over your general advice. I feel myself guessing and finding a matching structure on parallel reasoning questions, that's pretty cool, huh?

Yeah, I think that helps me. I do a lot of edemology when I'm teaching the bar, think it helps a lot understanding where the words come from.

Okay, let's take a look at parallel reasoning. Thanks for asking the blue. So parallel reasoning. Aura, alliolis, I'll show you how you write this.

It helps a lot when you're studying law for the bar. I mean, not a lot, but it helps you avoid having to memorize.

It's part of meaning, it's a Greek root, meaning, beside each other. Okay, that's very helpful. So parallel reasoning, what are we doing in parallel reasoning?

What we're doing here is we're trying to find one that matches as much as possible. But it doesn't, have to be perfect.

I think that's one of the trickiest things. It does not have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the rest.

What does that mean? That means two things. For one, as always, step one is always, same as every logic for reasoning, break down the arguments.

Here is then what we have to do. Once again, let's see just kind of side-by-side with, like we can strengthen, let's talk about parallel reasoning and flawed parallel reasoning.

How do we find an answer choice that matches finding match? Okay. We want one that parallels, has the same things that the argument does, but what is absolutely like non-negotiable,-breaker stuff versus what can we let slide?

Here's what step one is So you have to break down the arguments, you to figure out what is the flaw, or if there is a flaw at all.

So a parallel reasoning question, these are valid arguments, and flaw parallel reasoning are flaw arguments. And technically, this is the only thing that literally has to match.

So when we're finding something that matches, this is the only thing that is absolutely necessary. This is absolutely necessary.

An answer choice on a parallel reasoning question, if it's a valid argument, the answer choice, the correct answer has to be valid.

You have to eliminate, this means it's necessary, that means you have to immediately eliminate all flawed arguments. for flaw parallel reasoning, you have to eliminate all valid answer choice arguments.

Does that make sense? That's the one thing that has to match. This has to match. Yeah, or in other words, let me even go back here.

Imagine we have our first, let's just do this, imagine my argument is just, if you are a dog, you are beautiful, if you are beautiful, people take, let's say selfies with you, so I conclude, if you are a dog, people take selfies with you, is this argument blue, valid or flawed?

We're imagining, this is question number one in my logical reasoning, parallel reasoning. Touch it. Exactly right. Because what this is is it's just break this down.

How did you figure out this was valid? How did you figure out this was valid? Then. And do you see the if then statements here?

Do you do much session necessary stuff? Exactly. So if you are a dog, if dog, beautiful, if beautiful, selfies.

And then we can add these up. How do we add these up with the transitive property? You know how to add these up?

So, let's go through that, that's a big, you have to have this down before you can get into pillar reasoning.

So, this actually, I'm glad we're talking about this. So, let's take a bigger step back, let's go through submission necessary.

So, sufficient necessary is this, sufficient necessary is a tool to figure out if an argument is valid. And, it's a tool to learn more, to make valid deductions and make your own valid arguments.

So, sufficient necessary conditions is a tool for valid deductions. So, what is it? a two step process. First, have to translate a sentence, I'm just going to add another decision message, a diaphragm.

So, if you are a dog, you are beautiful, we can translate into the diagram of if D, B. then once we have the diagram, use step two is use the diagram or the formula, whatever you want to call it, to make deductions and making deductions just a fancy way to say a learn new things.

Okay. do you know blue what the valid deductions are? Right. Do you remember what the valid deductions are we can make?

There's three main ones. Go ahead, Raghu.

Yeah. Like one is, if it is A to B, B to C, trans to property, A to C. Exactly.

then Blue just put it in chat as well, exactly. this is called, if you got to write, and now let me break this down for you, perfect.

So the three I want you to all know is the contra positive is 100% true valid deduction. Chaining is 100% true valid deduction.

And the transitive property is 100% true valid deduction. The contra positive is, if you tell me if A and B, it is also always 100% true.

The contra positive, which is to flip it and negate it, not B, then not A. So this is what we know.

So then we can deduce or learn. So this is always 100% true. We can chain things together, too. So if we have if a, then b, and if b, then c, we can chain them together and learn if a, then b, then c.

And the transit property, same thing. We can chain them together and then cut out the middle term. If a, then b, then c, and then cut out the middle term.

If a, then c. This is always 100% true. And then the contra positive is still also true. If not c, then not a.

So these are always 100% true valid deductions. So let's go back now. Can you blue break down this question for me?

These get two F then statements. Can you translate them into diagrams and then give me a 100% true deduction?

I know it's tricky, I know I'm putting you on the spot but I'll work with you on this. If you are a dog,

You are beautiful, and if you are beautiful, people take selfies with you. Can you turn those two into diagrams?

If you are a dog, says blue, then you are beautiful, but if you are beautiful, then people take selfies with you like that, perfect, then what tool, what deduction tool can we use to learn something new here?

Yeah, you got it. I just understand. Right. if you are a dog, people will take selfies with you, what is the contra positive of that statement to?

There's one more thing we can be sure it is also true. And then if you negate it, right? The contra positive, if people don't take selfies with you, exactly good, then you're not a dog, perfect.

Now, we are 100% true. This is what a valid argument would look like. Let's compare their argument to our argument.

Is there argument true if you are a dog, people take selfies with you? Is that true? No, good and why not?

I think it might be true. So this is a valid argument. So this is step one and parallel reasoning.

Like to draw the diagram, step one, diagram, two is the valid or flawed, step three is what else? Here's what we're going to do.

We did the diagram. figured out it was valid. What else do we notice here? I want to notice as many features.

want to notice features of the arguments. So I noticed the first part of the argument starts with an if then statement, the second is an if then statement, and the third is the transitive property, correct conclusion here.

And so here is my anticipation then of what the right answer trust will look like. I need a valid argument.

And then what else, I ideally will have one that uses two if then statements, and then also the conclusion is based on the transitive property.

This is my anticipation of the right answer. I want the answer choice that matches the most of these. Ideally, all three, but if none of them match all three, whichever one matches two of the three will be the right answer.

Does not have to be perfect, it has to be better than the other ones. I want to notice all the features I can, maybe it uses a not statement, maybe it uses a contrapositive, maybe it does this or that, maybe it uses an OR statement.

The only thing that is required, this has to match, it has to be valid. So any answer choice that is not valid, you have to eliminate, but of all the ones that are valid, whichever

Funds also match the most of the rest of the features. Is there any answer? Did that make a sense, Blue?

What is number two? If there's two if then statements, that was what the argument was made out of two, right?

It's if you are a dog, you're beautiful, if you're a beautiful people, take selfie with you. I'm just trying to notice more things about the argument to match the parallel.

Okay, let's try this once really quick. Let's try, well, make sure we can at least finish one question. I know we're running out of the time, but I want to make sure we do at least one question in parallel raising it, so everyone gets a fair shot here today.

So let's try. I just want to show you one where we just break this down. Why don't we try this one?

What does this say here? I'll actually, is this clear, is this okay when you do, let's probably find it, yeah, what is it?

What's the breakdown of this argument? What's breakdown This is a, there might be a, there more straight forward one to start with in this one.

Let's just break this down. People who have obitually slept less than six hours a night and then begin to be eight or more hours a night typically begin to feel much less anxious.

So if you do six hours, then eight hours, then you typically feel less anxious. Therefore, we aren't straight to a conclusion.

Most people who sleep less than six hours a night can probably cause their anxiety level to fall by beginning to sleep at least eight hours a night.

Is that conclusion 100% true? Go a little bit to form. It's actually going to be. I want to teach a different point here.

There's a flood pill reasoning. Can I assign this to you for homework? parallel reasoning number 68? Try this one again.

This one's flawed. I want to try a different one that is a little bit more what we're working on to build and what we just did.

think it just makes more sense to do it that way. Yeah, let's try this. What's the breakdown of this?

this for homework. You If you have a large amount of money in the bank Then you're spending power it's great perfect what else If you're spending power is great then you are happy so what's the conclusion You

If you have a lot of money in the bank, then you are happy. Is this conclusion correct and tell me how you know?

How do we know? conclusion? Here are my facts, right? Let's imagine you personally were to add up these facts.

How would you add up these two facts? What rules do we know in the sufficient necessary world? What tools do we have to add up facts?

can you hear me by the way yeah but right on figure I turn on my mic um yeah is it a valid argument it is right how do you know okay gotcha so I'm gonna set up first um because I forgot if your spending power is great you're happy this is the promises aligned okay gotcha exactly so as ridiculous as it is on the LSAT and when you get to law school in the bar whatever facts that give you just take them as true you're right in real life spending power might have nothing to do with happiness but we just don't ask that question the facts are given as true the only thing we argue about is do these true facts actually correctly lead to this conclusion so if we do assume that spending power does lead to happiness this is now correct right mm-hmm they did this correctly they used the trans in their property so here's what we're going anticipate so

Step one, as you said, this is a valid argument. Step two, what other features can we notice? They use an if then statement and another if then statement.

they use two if then statements. And in three, they made the conclusion by using a transitive property, right? This is going to be the perfect answer choice we're looking for.

The only thing that has to match is this has to match, and these ones are optional. Does that make sense for you, Blue?

Because this is a, which is the most closely parallel? It does not have to perfectly parallel. And so ideally, yes, it will match all three, but if it doesn't, we can't eliminate it.

We just have to try to find a better one. So if the first one is valid, but doesn't match the other one of these, I can't really eliminate it.

have to say, well, still matches one. Maybe the rest are going to be flawed. And it's still going to be the best answer.

It's not a perfect answer. They're just most closely parallel. If answer choice B matches one and two, that's great.

I'll try to find if a different one matches all three, and that one's going to be the most parallel.

Does that make sense?

It doesn't say perfectly parallel. It's just most closely parallel. So it has to match this, but the rest of them it just has to do better than the other ones.

So we're out of time. Take a look at this sufficient necessary question number five. You're going to have to diagram each of these A through E1 by one and find one that most matches, matches the most features of the original argument.

Gotcha, I'll check it out. Yeah, thank you everyone, really good job. We'll talk again next time everyone's making good progress and have a good rest of your week.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.