The way I have been answering these questions and getting them right is not by using lawgic or writing things down. Is that ok for the LSAT? Or am I setting myself up for failure?
Man somehow I thought the word "resultant" was referring to WHY the rush hour traffic flow increased, not the result of increasing the capacity of the bridge. Smh!
:( i had all the logic written down correctly, but i didn't choose B because i thought that answer choice was saying the terms in the wrong order. saying like if necessary then sufficient.
for me as an old folk student that joined the work force instead of going right into law school from gradschool, this question made me so annoyed to read through. In the work place i wouldve just wrtitten a big question mark on it and handed it back to whatever schlemiel wrote it and told them to rewrite it.
I got it right, but it took me a good min. Tbf I skipped over the LSAT Fundamentals and went straight to LR. Imma go over the fundamentals tomorrow and next week and then revisit LR. I think it will help me a lot with timing, lmk what you guys think because there is a good chance you are smarter than I.
man! I got it right in BR again, idk why I am always confused between two answer choice and always pick the wrng one! ughhh C, D and E - easily eliminated
honestly, the stimulus was just so difficult for me to understand. I only got this question correct by a very shaky POE.
A - doesn't mention anything about being able to choose the software package
C - 2nd sentence states that this all took place last year. comparing anything to the current year is invalid
D - "highest" is too extreme of a modifier.
E - we do not know of the mayor's intentions
Again, i did not use lawgic because i genuinely didn't even understand the stim. but based on certain key words, you're able to eliminate most of the answer choices!
Would it be possible to include a blank screenshot of the question along with the video example so that we can attempt it ourselves first/follow along by screenshotting and marking up?
am i the only one that sometimes accidentally translates counterfactual claims using group 4 indicators? like sometimes i see a sentence with a bunch of no, nones, nots, and i get confused and end up translating things wrong. any tips on avoiding this?
But, I still got the right answer. Did I do something incorrectly? This doesn't look like the contrapositive of what he did in the video but I cannot see why it is wrong.
I feel like for questions like this with a lot of extra jargon, it becomes even more relevant to be able to parse the sentences and understand what the subject and predicate are. It becomes MUCH easier to understand the argument if you are able to ignore the modifiers and focus on the main subject, objects, predicate etc.
so instead of reading the sentence as "and the city’s financial predicament would not have been resolved if the traffic flow across the bridge during rush hour had not been increased" -- I simply read it as "the financial predicament wouldn't have been resolved if traffic was not increased"
I had the write translation and was able to narrow it down to B and D.
I translated it as /invest in MT → /Traffic → /Resolved. However, once listening to the explanation, I should’ve chose B because it is the exact translation of the claim.
My way of getting to this answer seems to differ from the above. My guess is that I just did the contrapositive but I'm not sure.... could someone help confirm?
My way of getting to this answer seems to differ from the above. My guess is that I just did the contrapositive but I'm not sure.... could someone help confirm?
investment -> increase -> resolved
resolved -> increase -> ~ investment
from this, i hunted for the answer that showed me the connection between a city's finances not being resolved from lack of investment and i believed b to represent this.... i'm worried i just got the answer right but did it the wrong way
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
145 comments
I got it right, but it takes me so long, because I do not trust myself enough to not do POE
The way I have been answering these questions and getting them right is not by using lawgic or writing things down. Is that ok for the LSAT? Or am I setting myself up for failure?
Man somehow I thought the word "resultant" was referring to WHY the rush hour traffic flow increased, not the result of increasing the capacity of the bridge. Smh!
I missed the NOT before CMT :( but then got it right in BR once I realized lol
:( i had all the logic written down correctly, but i didn't choose B because i thought that answer choice was saying the terms in the wrong order. saying like if necessary then sufficient.
I'M GETTING THE HANG OF IT!!!! Turns out the fundamental curriculum really does help!!
for me as an old folk student that joined the work force instead of going right into law school from gradschool, this question made me so annoyed to read through. In the work place i wouldve just wrtitten a big question mark on it and handed it back to whatever schlemiel wrote it and told them to rewrite it.
I got it right, but it took me a good min. Tbf I skipped over the LSAT Fundamentals and went straight to LR. Imma go over the fundamentals tomorrow and next week and then revisit LR. I think it will help me a lot with timing, lmk what you guys think because there is a good chance you are smarter than I.
man! I got it right in BR again, idk why I am always confused between two answer choice and always pick the wrng one! ughhh C, D and E - easily eliminated
Im with everyone else, I got it but figuring out that roadmap took a while.
jesus that was a tough read, managed to get it via process of elimination but my mapping skills under time was not on lock
It was easy to understand when I mapped it out but that process put me way over the allotted time
honestly, the stimulus was just so difficult for me to understand. I only got this question correct by a very shaky POE.
A - doesn't mention anything about being able to choose the software package
C - 2nd sentence states that this all took place last year. comparing anything to the current year is invalid
D - "highest" is too extreme of a modifier.
E - we do not know of the mayor's intentions
Again, i did not use lawgic because i genuinely didn't even understand the stim. but based on certain key words, you're able to eliminate most of the answer choices!
Would it be possible to include a blank screenshot of the question along with the video example so that we can attempt it ourselves first/follow along by screenshotting and marking up?
am i the only one that sometimes accidentally translates counterfactual claims using group 4 indicators? like sometimes i see a sentence with a bunch of no, nones, nots, and i get confused and end up translating things wrong. any tips on avoiding this?
is it bad that I used a more simple conditional lawgic:
/traffic flow increased → /invested in computer tech AND /financial predicament resolved
and I just looked for the answer choice that said the same thing or its contrapositive. And only B made the most sense based on this lawgic
I translated this as:
computer modelling -> increase rush hour traffic -> resolve financial predicament
But, I still got the right answer. Did I do something incorrectly? This doesn't look like the contrapositive of what he did in the video but I cannot see why it is wrong.
I feel like for questions like this with a lot of extra jargon, it becomes even more relevant to be able to parse the sentences and understand what the subject and predicate are. It becomes MUCH easier to understand the argument if you are able to ignore the modifiers and focus on the main subject, objects, predicate etc.
so instead of reading the sentence as "and the city’s financial predicament would not have been resolved if the traffic flow across the bridge during rush hour had not been increased" -- I simply read it as "the financial predicament wouldn't have been resolved if traffic was not increased"
I had the write translation and was able to narrow it down to B and D.
I translated it as /invest in MT → /Traffic → /Resolved. However, once listening to the explanation, I should’ve chose B because it is the exact translation of the claim.
I find it so hard to use conditional logic for these types of questions.
My way of getting to this answer seems to differ from the above. My guess is that I just did the contrapositive but I'm not sure.... could someone help confirm?
My way of getting to this answer seems to differ from the above. My guess is that I just did the contrapositive but I'm not sure.... could someone help confirm?
investment -> increase -> resolved
resolved ->increase -> ~ investmentfrom this, i hunted for the answer that showed me the connection between a city's finances not being resolved from lack of investment and i believed b to represent this.... i'm worried i just got the answer right but did it the wrong way
This made me feel smart until I saw the difficulty was only a 3
We got this gang
this is hard to understand