Last-Minute Tips for Logical Reasoning (Advanced) with Nate

I'm going to go in a different direction, how does everything go with you? Good. Only you and me. If you want to do something else, let me know.

Great. good.

Great. Really good day here. Are you working with a tutor as well? Are you studying on your own?

Great idea. Yeah. Any other tutors can be great. I think that's a really good idea. At least. There's only so much you can teach yourself.

helps to have one person looking at some of your work a little bit in this session right now. If you're the only one here, we can definitely drill down on some of the stuff you want to work on.

But I know it's a bit early to figure out everything you need. But I was going to start a state with argument completion unless you wanted to go in a different direction.

All right. All right. Okay. So here's what I want to say. The LSAT, as we discussed, and I just want to take it again from the top, is really teaching like airtight arguments.

That means if evidence includes fact A, B, C, D, and E, the best possible conclusion will be addressing every single one of these facts.

If it forgets one of the facts, the argument could have been more complete if it had brought in this fact and did not.

And vice versa, if it brings in a new fact that's not related to the facts, there's something else going wrong.

Exactly.

Okay, let's try this watch this imagine if I say all people and actually let me leave that up just so you can see that I don't want to do it on that.

Okay, all people um are mammals. What could you include here if you added these facts together?

Yeah, the person and all people are mammals.

Perfect, perfect, but actually people is just the plural of person, right? Correct, Yeah, so how would you add these together?

to reach a conclusion.

And M. Perfect. Yeah. what's the relationship?

Right. And so if these were just facts and if I wanted you to do a complete this argument and give me a conclusion based on these two facts, what would you be able to say if you can add these together?

That's right. If I told you, every person on earth is a mammal and Nate is a person. What could you tell us about Nate?

Nate is a mammal. You got it. That's exactly right. So that means... is that you've used every one of the facts together and made a conclusion, right?

get the people, Nate, person, the mammals, you've added these together, Nate is mammal. I guess if you really want a fully complete person, you can argue me, you can say and a person, but that's already in the facts.

No big deal, no big deal. So let's take one more step. What would it mean if I didn't address one of these facts?

What if I did this instead? What if I said all people are mammals? And I just want to add one more in the middle here.

All people are mammals. All people own, let's say just own dogs. You know, I know that's not true. Let's say all people like dogs.

Let's just start like that. All people like dogs. Thus, I conclude, Nate is a mammal. What fact did I not include?

I have an extra fact in here that I didn't use in my conclusion.

That's it. if I wanted to add that into my conclusion to complete this argument and make it a fully complete argument, would be it is a mammal and likes dogs, right?

Right. Perfect. Is that correct? So you want to fully complete the top perfectly matches the bottom type of thing.

What if I did this though? Imagine, let's go back to make a little more simpler, all people are mammals, NATE is a person, the correct conclusion.

Clusion is nade is a mammal, right? Mm-hmm what if I told you instead Thus I conclude That raga vendor Is it mammal?

What did I do wrong here?

I expect to write or on the more abstract level I brought in something new in the conclusion Right That's not in the facts.

That would be like bringing in a new concept and the conclusion concept Z here.

So what I want to do instead of I want nothing new in the conclusion. I want a perfect match up between top and bottom.

If the conclusion is ABCD, I better have facts about ABCD. If in this case, the conclusion is ABCD and it talks about rather vendor.

I have a missing fact. I need a fact about Raghavender too. Go to. Exactly. That's how you make a perfect argument on the outside.

The top and the bottom have to perfectly match up. That's what argument completion is. It's we want a completed perfect completed argument from top to bottom talking about everything.

So here's what we're going to do. We're going to practice this. This goes to the heart of the entire LSAT.

It's not a super confident question type, but it encapsulates everything on the LSAT.

Okay, let's try one that doesn't, let's start with the first one here, I had a lot of complex words but go ahead and read this one for yourself and we're going to complete our argument ourselves then we're going to go on maybe some one but this one might have too many hard words in it let's just practice the whole concept.

Sure, it's really loud out. I just have to you, it's you can read in your head around here, it's entirely your class today.

pause there for second. Let's make it ourselves. Let's start. Let's make our own argument ourselves. So how would you use every one of these facts, add them together just like we did before to make a conclusion, use every single fact?

Basically, they are saying outside interference should not be there. Perfect, perfect, exactly right. Now also hello to Alejandro who just joined us, we're just doing argument completion questions and what we're going to do here is, we're given, I think it's like four facts here, I can't tell you exactly how many.

We want to make a conclusion that uses every single one of these facts. The same thing we're going to do on every question type.

A perfect conclusion brings in every single fact. So what conclusion can you make here addressing every single fact that they gave us?

Can you think of one, Ragavendra? Can you think of one, Alejandra? You can unmute and say it or put it in the chat.

I just want to talk about every single point that they brought up. I don't want to leave any possibility un-considered.

Can anyone think of it here? you add these all up together here? How would you add up every one of these facts that makes this conclusion here and fill in that blank?

So why don't we take a look at this? Why don't we take a look at this? If I wanted to bring in every single fact, what if I said this?

I have anthropologists assert that cultures advance only when independence replaces dependence, that it's only when imposition by outsiders is replaced by initiative from within.

That means as Raggle understood, we have to want to change ourselves. probably the same as psychology, right? people can't change you, you have to want to change yourself.

In other words, the natives of a culture are the only ones that can move that culture forward. So again, the native, the internal people of this culture, non-natives, they produce valuable advice for people from the outside, but any imposition of their views threatens independence and thus progress.

If one looks at individual schools, go ahead.

Perfect. Yeah, but let's hold on to that for one second. Before we look at the info, let's try to build our own correct answer before we ever get to the answers is always on the LSAT, just to make sure you're not going to get tricked by trick answers.

That's a really good answer choice there. But let's try to build it ourselves. Because this is what exactly we have to do on every part of the LSAT.

And so then if one just going to bring into the end, one looks at individual schools as separate culture, therefore the key to educational progress is obvious.

And so I want to bring in every single fact one by one from the top here to fill up blank.

Therefore, the key to educational progress is obvious. And I'm going to bring in every fact now. If education is similar to culture, then culture is an education will only advance when independence replaces dependent.

and that means only when imposition by outsiders of the school is replaced by initiatives from within the school. In other words, the natives of the school are the only ones who can move that culture forward.

That educational culture of the school, non-natives outsiders from the school may provide valuable insight or advice, but any imposition of outsiders to the school's views upon the inside of the school threatens independence of that school and thus progress educational progress of that school.

Is that is that clear how we brought in every single one and made a really really comprehensive conclusion there?

Now which one of these matches that and these are all way too short but which one of these discusses the same thing we discussed and you can unmute and say it or you can put it in the chat or and we'll take a look

Indeed, outsiders must be prevented from participation, is it that they must be prevented from participation? That's on the right track.

But is that exactly what we're saying?

It's not quite there.

Right. Right. Good. Do you want to go ahead also, Rago? Yes, sir.

But it's not mentioned. Let's try to find one that only brings in stuff that's mentioned, both of you are correct.

D and D are on the right track here. But which one of these talks about the idea that, from the top, educational progress will only advance when independence replaces dependence.

That is when the people inside the school can take advice from the people outside of the school. But they must have their own motivation to progress.

It's on the right track. So we don't talk about tailoring change from the outside. Which one of these says we have to be motivated for change from the inside?

B. Them schools require more independence than others. We don't know about more than others. Which one of these says we need inside motivation and not pressure from the outside?

Yeah, exactly. Individual schools must be in the. dependent of outside imposition that matches like we all said from the top here will only advance via independence only when imposition of outsiders is replaced by initiative from within.

The only way to advance is from within and not from without. And we're also told any imposition of outside use threatens independence and thus progress.

We can have no imposition of outside use or else progress can be threaded. It is a really good job.

Really good job. These are tricky but these really encapsulate the entire LSAT. We have to have an exact perfect match up of top to bottom of the facts and the conclusion.

Let's try another one of these. Let's try another one of these. Go ahead and read this one to yourself and if you can whenever you're unmute yourself and put it in the chat.

Can you come up? Don't look at the instructions yet but can you invent your own correct conclusion? You can bring in every single fact one by one and it's going to be long and take your time and just spell it out But let's see if we can do that You What's going on in this one here Um, I think that the conclusion would have to be something about Teaching them to self moderate when it comes to the drink the soft drinks and candies

absolutely right. And bring in, that's exactly right.

Perfect. That's exactly right. And I actually want you to do that same mindset for every question type on the LSAT.

Every single fact should be addressed in the conclusion. And nothing in the conclusion can be new. It has to only be from the facts.

It can't be from outside information. We can't then have a conclusion that says, like here, something about the school board or something about other schools.

That's not helpful. That's outside information. That's outside information is an assumption. don't make assumptions. It could only be information from within.

Let's find an answer choice that matches that. Go ahead and put it in the chat when you're ready. So both of you have a chance to review without hearing anyone else.

But you've got this exactly right. You have the answer to it here. Which one of these says we need to have them self-regulate?

We got one answer choice coming in, rival vendor, you have one as well? Perfect. It's the exact right, exactly.

good job. Really, really good job. Let's keep going with a couple more of these. I really like these. They go straight.

No one, we don't teach you this quite enough. They're not a very common question type. But I want you to say the mind that on every question on the LSAT where that conclusion has to perfectly match the facts and use all the facts and bring in no new information.

Can't bring in stuff out of nowhere. We always want to go do that. Let's take a look at this one.

Criminals often have an unusual self-image. Invezzlers often dig of their actions. only borrowing one. Many people convicted of violent crimes.

And rationalize their actions by some sort of denial. to the victim deserved it, and so the action was justified, or it simply wasn't my fault.

Thus, they meant cases by criminals, characterization of their own situations. How would you bring it every one of these facts to come up with our own inclusion of the action?

How would you come up with our own conclusion here that brings in both of these three lines, three sentences?

Add, you've got all three of these sentences. It's perfect for you, can if we can. I'll try to bring it together.

Criminals often have an unusual self-image and bezlers often think of their actions only borrowing money many people convicted of violent crimes rationalize their actions by some sort of denial either the victim deserved it and so the action was justified or it simply wasn't my fault.

Thus in many cases, so what do I have here criminals are unusual and bezlers think it's just borrowing violent criminals either deny or they say

say they deserve it or not my faults. So if I add up all these together, what do I say?

Criminals and bezlers and violence criminals. I want to bring in every fact, are weird. They don't think it's their faults.

Or they give other excuses for being not responsible. Does that make sense of the seem like we brought in every fact?

Criminals in many cases don't think that they are responsible. Let's see if we find one that matches that. Which one of these seem to say, adding together all these facts means criminals think they have different excuses and different reasons to do what they get and are not.

So it's not their fault. Yeah, go ahead and put your one inch in. Regular vendor, do you have one as well?

Put it in the chat whenever you're ready. Yeah, everyone's really getting this. Actions are not criminal. It's not their fault or it's someone else's fault.

But regardless, I'm not a criminal if I did nothing wrong. Exactly right. Exactly right. Let's try one more of these.

And then we're going to bring in, we're going to go, we'll do it to other question types. But I just want to, I think it really encapsulates the entire LSAT win.

Okay. Long-distance runners use two different kinds of cognitive strategies. Also, let me know if has any questions on the firewall.

Two different types of cognitive strategies, associative and dissociative strategies involve attending closely to physical sensations, while dissociative strategies involve mostly ignoring physical sensations.

All associative strategies, unlike dissociative strategies, require so much concentration that the result in mental exhaustion lasting more than a day.

Since it is important for long-distance runners to enter a race mentally refreshed, I want you to bring in every one of these first three or four sentences to make a conclusion here.

Add those together. What will we say? What will we say? The fact where we're given two options?

That's exactly it. You've 100% nailed it. You've even made so much progress from like 15 minutes ago. You do it incredible.

That's incredible. That's exactly right. Let's see if we find one that matches. That's perfect. That's perfect. Go ahead and put your answer in the chat whenever you, whenever you got that.

After this, we're going to try a different question type, but we're going to use the same strategy. just really want to point out all of logical reasoning is this kind of one specific thing.

It's making sure the conclusion matches the facts. That's the absolute biggest most important thing. If anyone have any questions on this, does anyone have any question on argument completion?

Okay. I want to show you how this connects to the entire rest of the LSAT, which is we want a conclusion that perfectly matches the facts.

I want to go to Let's take a look at this one here. Here's what I actually want to do.

want to bring in a hybrid strategy. It's a little tricky, but let's imagine this is an argument completion question too.

Here's the whole passage. When Cortez arrived in Mexico in AD 1519, he observed the inhabitants playing a ceremonial game with a rubber ball.

The pre-Columbian inhabitants of be sure that they get a must have originated sometime between approximately 80, 1,000 and Cortez arrival.

This is an assumption question. There's something going on here. There's something new in the conclusion. They're making an assumption, they're bringing outside information.

If we treat this like an argument completion question, it might be really easy to find the assumption. If I just look at those first two sentences, when Cortez arrived in Mexico in 1519, observed the inhabitants playing a ceremonial game with a rubber ball.

Second fact, the pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico began to use rubber around 81,000. What conclusion could you all make if you add these two facts together about Colombia, about the inhabitants, about Mexico, about the game, about a rubber?

What would you be able to say? What would you be able to do if this is an argument completion question?

How would you add to go to those steps? What if I told you all, bringing in both those facts, thus either the game was originated after the invention of rubber, or the game previously didn't use rubber in the ball, or the game changed forms entirely, and after the introduction of rubber, they could realize they could use a ball and they could use a ball at all, they used, I don't know, dice or a spear.

And anyway, it's either the game has changed or the game didn't originally use use rubber. Is that clear here?

Instead, though, they said, thus, can be sure the game must have originated sometime between approximately 80, 1000, course, does the level.

What did they do wrong? What's different between our conclusion and their conclusion? What's different?

Exactly. They ignored a lot of possibilities that we brought in. Every one of those things they ignored or didn't consider or discounted is a flaw.

That's the flaw. That's the assumption they've made. Which one of these discusses one of those assumptions? Take a look at the answer to it.

What are they assuming? What are they assuming without stating an assumption is an outside piece of information?

That's on the right track. That's very much on the right track. But let's go a little bit deeper because we didn't say that in our conclusion.

We didn't think.

That's it. That's 100% it. Do you see how we brought in that possibility in our conclusion and they didn't?

And if you make an argument, complete your question out of any question or logical reasoning, and then they compare your conclusion with their conclusion, any difference, whether they've added stuff or subtracted stuff from your full complete conclusion, any difference is a flaw.

And the flaw that they didn't consider was we said, well, the game could have actually been different 500 years ago.

And every game is different. Like, I don't even think we play maybe running. and rowing are the only two games left on Earth from 500 years ago, baseball has been around for just a couple hundred years, from the lesson 100, I don't know, for less than 100.

So if you're assuming the game hadn't changed in 500 years, you're making a bad assumption. Making a really, really large assumption.

So yeah, perfect. Really, really good. wanted to ask you one thing.

Is that what we are trying to say? We actually don't care about making rubber balls at all.

makes sense me. The game itself always use rubber balls. These on the right track, but it's not absolutely necessary.

Yeah, really good. Yeah, perfect. And if you have any other questions, any of these, let me know. Let's try a couple more of these.

Let's try this one. Let's try use this as an argument completion question. I want to really put you on the spot to try to do argument completion.

In Europe, school children devote time to devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program.

Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

That last sentence is the conclusion if we can Or that last sentence for a second, what would you conclude, if this was an argument completion question, just based on those first three sentences?

In Europe, we do calisthenics. North American schools rarely do, test prove that North American schools are weaker, slower, shorter-winded than European children.

How would you add together those facts to reach a conclusion?

Exactly, perfect. Or like you said, it could literally be anything else, especially, it could be something different in North America, something specifically different.

These are very far apart, perfect, exactly right. What's the difference in between what you said and what they said?

Any difference is the flaw, is the assumption. They said it must be the calisthenics. You said that it's one possibility.

So their difference is it has to be calisthenics. And you said it could be this or it could be anything else.

Which one of these says they're assuming it has to be the calisthenics?

Yeah Which one of these says European children the only reason they're more physically fit the North American children and calisthenics I?

Think D you got it. That's a hundred percent it hundred percent All we did was you made your own conclusion you compared it to their conclusion and anything they did differently is the flaw You'd categorize this as As a cause and effect flaw, right?

Yeah, yeah, this would be a cause or alternative causes.

Yeah, okay. Perfect Perfect Let's bring in another one. This is one of my questions to show this on This is so common Train service suffers when a railroad combines commuter and freight service

By dividing its attention between freight and commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well. Therefore, if a railroad is going to make successful business, then it must concentrate on exclusively on one of these two markets.

Let's ignore that last sentence. And now we just have, train service suffers when a railroad combines commuter and freight service.

By dividing its attention between freight and commuter customers, a railroad service neither particularly well. What would we conclude if we could add these two together?

We'd be able to say if we add these two things together. I'm going tell me if you can in your own words, in your words, what would you say for a conclusion here?

See, it's definitely on the right track, I might do the right answer, but can you make your own conclusion first?

That's probably basically it, right? It's gonna be something like, if you care about serving both well, you should do or if you try to do both, you're gonna reduce your service quality, and so you have to decide if that's worth it.

It's gonna be something about the idea of, you only have so much attention. Now what did they say in their conclusion?

And you said if a railroad is gonna be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets.

What's different in their conclusion from our conclusion?

about how to be a successful business and they don't talk about that coming out of nowhere exactly right that's the key to the entire else that the conclusion is almost always bringing something totally out of nowhere or ignore something in the fact that's right that's the entire LSAT in a nutshell so we have their assumption is something about service and dividing attention between service and serving both is somehow connected to successful business because you didn't mention that's outside information that's an assumption assumption is outside information that's assumption they're making here is you give us facts about service and a conclusion about success there must be a connection between the two great let's see if we find one that says service and success are related which one of these says that the sorry

I think you got it right, say one more time?

That's right, yeah, for some reason it sounds like what you're saying. Deep, but see, exactly right. See, unless you serve its customers well, you got it exactly right.

It will not be a successful business. think my hearing is going or my earphones are going. I'm going to blame my earphones.

getting old though, that could be the hearing. That's exactly right. That success and service are related. Exactly right. That's the assumption I made.

Perfect. Perfect. Every one of these is going to have this whole thing in it. Either they didn't consider some facts or they brought in something new in this inclusion.

We're going try to do one more before we run out of time. Let's try another one here. want to go, let's go to the end, bring in a little bit more of a hard one.

I'm going read this one to us. Roland's argument assumes that. Okay. Many people should follow diets in which fat represents no more than 30% of total calories.

Not the 30% the average diet in this country contains. Roland said. as if everyone in the country followed your recommendation during his or her entire life, just 0.2% would lengthen their lives at all, and then only by an average of three months.

Modifying our diet is not worthwhile. lifetime of sacrifice spent eating an unappealing low-fat diet is too high price to pay for the chance of extending that sacrifice for three months.

So we don't have to read the rest of that. We're only worried about Roland's argument. So let's pause here for one second.

The conclusion is, these last two sentences together, modifying our diet is not worthwhile. A lifetime of sacrifice spent eating an unappealing low-fat diet is too high a price to pay for the chance of extending that sacrifice for three months.

The facts we are given here is, nearness says, people should follow diets in which person consumes, and then one more.

fact, if people did this, they would extend their lifespan by about three months for about 0.2% of the population.

If you could add these two facts together, plus four facts, don't really know, what would you say? How would we complete this argument ourselves, ignoring the conclusions here?

Just to make it more complete. But for everyone who dies early from the high fight by diet, many more people suffer from chronic disease.

I'm going bring in one more fact. It's not just lifespan, it's chronic disease. Does that help with it all?

I don't really know what you can really.

It's very common in the upset. give us so weak of fat and such a strong conclusion that it's totally unsupported.

Yep. I'm add to that. going add one more piece. If I were to make my own conclusion here, I would say, like you said, it's usually not much we can conclude at all because they make a conclusion on two-piece information.

It's not enough to make a conclusion usually. We know that the average diet is 37% fat, and Mirna says people should follow diet from which fat represents no more than 30%.

So, how would I bring all this information together? If we just reduced by a little bit the amount of fat to eat from 37% to 30%, you'd have less people suffering from serious chronic diseases.

We'd have a few people living three months longer, and that's it. That's the whole thing I could do. It's not really much of focus and rant, it's that.

a lifetime of sacrifice eating unappealing foods, a low-fat diet is too high a price to pay for just barely extending your life.

What's the difference here between what Roland said and what we said?

Oh, he assumes that changing your diet means eating unappealing foods. That's it. That's it. That's the biggest thing he's done.

He's done a couple of other things wrong. Where is he getting this idea? unappealing. It's just a little bit less fat.

If that just means one, don't put milk in your coffee and change nothing else. I don't even know. It doesn't sound like a big difference to me.

37 to 30%. Two, he also calls that a lifetime of sacrifice. Roland's really dramatic here, really going way too far.

Three, we're not just a small bit of people extending our life. We're also avoiding chronic disease. So these three things

here are the difference in vision of what Roland said and what we said and most importantly probably is that the idea of just bringing your diet down from 37 to 30 percent fat is a lifetime of sacrifice and it's unappealing and that's the only I mean that's it you know and so let's see if we find one that matches that let's see if we find another one that that which one of these says it's got to be a lifetime of sacrifice it's got to be unappealing I guess be that's it that's exactly right I also have a question about questions like these though so when the question or I guess the question stem in this case when it's just like Roland's argument assumes that when it comes to like what

I hate these questions. So you're asking a really good question. Here's what's going on, is they're sharing that. So one of two things can happen.

One, if we hear from Mirna first, and then hear from Roland, and the question only asks about Mirna, we give us ignore Roland entirely.

However, if they go back and forth, and Roland gives us an argument, gives us premise and a conclusion, and is using Mirna's premises as well, we need to bring in all of these premises in analyzing Roland's conclusion.

That makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We're just glad I had time. Thank you. Thank you everyone for your time.

Ragavender, Alejandro has been great working with you both. Thanks for chiming in. been really good to have almost like a semi private session.