Questions That Deal With Sets

Kylanorr

One of the major shortfall I'm currently having is questions that deal with intersecting sets. Really just sets in general. I really liked the link assumption tag, because it helped me work on logic chains.

All the questions I got wrong dealt with it. I was wondering if anyone else noticed having a similar deficit? Any specific questions types I should focus on?

William.wise422

You should pick up "Ellen Cassidy - The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning" Chapter 4 discusses sets, (X --> Y -->Z), (X -most-> Y --> Z), and (X -m-> Y -m-> Z). The whole books is great too. Helped me break into the high 160's

But one of the most important thing to remember is to be as ungenerous as possible.

Some can mean as little as 1%, if I say some of my cookie is chocolate chip and some of my cookie is raisin, then I could mean that my cookie has a single chocolate chip and a single raisin. Does that mean my chocolate chip is on top of my raisin? Nope. Even if most of my cookie is made of chocolate ship and some is raisin, that single raisin could always hide in the regular cookie part. But if most of my cookie is chocolate chip and most of my cookie is raisin, then there is going to be a spot where they are on top of each other because most implies more than half (51%), and there's no way I can have a cookie which is more than 100%.

With necessary and sufficient assumptions you can always assume that whenever the sufficient condition is present the necessary condition will be there too, 100% of the time. The trick of linking logic chains without the some(s) or most(s) is to get really good at translating into your own words, the words 'only' and 'unless'. Group 2 and Group 3 indicators. Practice translating sentences with them until its second nature.

When I was first starting out this video helped a lot: