I have to start taking negatives at face value. Instead of just mapping out the logic with the negatives, I got caught up in making it into the contrapositive, which in turn confused me way more than it should have.
Grammar is not my strong suit so I got tripped up on the "not-not"s. 7 Minutes over, unfortunately, but Its good i'm getting the mental exercise doing this. Accuracy first, speed second
These questions make no sense to me. How is the answer B? I feel like in past lessons we were told not to pick answers like these because we don’t know if the cities financial predicament would have been resolved or not if the city didn’t invest in the computer modeling technology. I feel like we learned that other factors may have caused the financial predicament being resolved even if the city didn’t invest. Am I just being dumb? I feel like the passage didn’t say anything about that.
@DrewBetts I used the formula A → B → C and then subsequently A → C to solve this question because the stimulus says that without the investment in the computer modeling technology there would not be a change in the rush-hour traffic flow, then says the financial predicament would not have been solved without the change in rush-hour traffic flow, so a logical conclusion to be made is that the computer modeling technology fixed the financial predicament.
computer modeling technology → increased traffic flow → money for city
Same here. I took much longer on this one, but considering time saved on other problems (idealy), better to get answer completely right than chance a wrong answer for speed.
im 3/3 so far on this chapter and under time on all which is hype.
but i am not writing anything nor using all the steps shown in the lessons, im kind of just going based off intuiton and mapping everything in my head.
@JamesCochran so far this has been working for me, i had some trouble with questions that have EXCEPT because it's harder to hunt for the correct answer, have you experienced this
Normally I have not been writing down work. With problems like these, I have to. Is that a bad habit to start? Stupid question... but can you write anywhere on the test?
With this question, I got caught up in translating the claims using Group 4 indicators (like "not") which threw me off. How did you know to instead interpret the claim using "if"?
hmm that's a good question but i think it just comes down to understanding the basics of conditional reasoning questions. this question is just saying "if this happens then this happens", it wants you to look at the bigger picture. IF does a great job in letting you know that you should pay attention to the concepts of the conditional.
For example:
If i did not win the lottery, then i did not buy a lottery ticket
/W --> /BT
If i bought a lottery ticket, then i won the lottery
BT --> W
This of it like this: If (i did not win the lottery), then (i did not buy a lottery ticket).
Notice that these are two concepts
If you did use the group 4 indicators it would look wonky! Check it out:
W --> /BT OR BT --> /W
Think of what these things are saying...
W --> /BT: If i won the lottery then i did NOT buy a lottery ticket? what the heck lol
BT --> /W: If i bought a lottery ticket, then i did NOT win the lottery? i mean-- no? buying a lottery ticket might make you a bit delusional given that we know our chances of winning are low but it doesn't mean it is 0 and this basically makes it 0...
NONE of these are logically equivalent to my first example.
When in doubt, take your time and translate your LAWGIC to english. I hope this helps! I know your comment is old but I thought I would post a reply for my own understanding and for others!
YESSIR 0:56 seconds. Man I would be so stuck on this type of question if I didn't go through the Lawgic modules. That has really helped, even just mentally, the difference between sufficient and necessary items.
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?
@DavesHotChkn in my opinion as long as you are getting them right you have found a good method. writing things down is actually not preferred because you obviously can't on the actual lsat.
@DavesHotChkn I had this exact same concern a few questions back. I think it means you're intuitively getting the answers correct but it is a good skill to practice because you can use it as an anchor on harder questions.
@DavesHotChkn Yeah I have been doing the same thing too! I was worried about it and honestly, if we start doing intuitive earlier it will help us when it comes to the test!
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!
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
174 comments
mad at myself for not going with what i originally thought the answer was
this did take me a while but got it
Surprised to see that this was ranked a 3 difficulty. It seemed much easier.
I have to start taking negatives at face value. Instead of just mapping out the logic with the negatives, I got caught up in making it into the contrapositive, which in turn confused me way more than it should have.
got it right in 35sec, although didn't completely understand the question i think
Grammar is not my strong suit so I got tripped up on the "not-not"s. 7 Minutes over, unfortunately, but Its good i'm getting the mental exercise doing this. Accuracy first, speed second
Easy, i almost choose D but the word “proponent” made me doubt it.
This one killed me but with time I got it right! So hard to parse out all the negatives
You know you're in for it bad when there's tons of comments
I'm starting to enjoy these! But only when i get it right :D
@Nampoina lmaoooooooo bye
took over a min but got it right despite the loud honking outside my apartment LOLOL
I'm getting it!!!
24 seconds left to spare woo hoo!!
2 min over but I got it
got this one wrong:/ I got so confused
These questions make no sense to me. How is the answer B? I feel like in past lessons we were told not to pick answers like these because we don’t know if the cities financial predicament would have been resolved or not if the city didn’t invest in the computer modeling technology. I feel like we learned that other factors may have caused the financial predicament being resolved even if the city didn’t invest. Am I just being dumb? I feel like the passage didn’t say anything about that.
@DrewBetts I used the formula A → B → C and then subsequently A → C to solve this question because the stimulus says that without the investment in the computer modeling technology there would not be a change in the rush-hour traffic flow, then says the financial predicament would not have been solved without the change in rush-hour traffic flow, so a logical conclusion to be made is that the computer modeling technology fixed the financial predicament.
computer modeling technology → increased traffic flow → money for city
technology → money
i need to stick with my first answers lol
So happy that I diagrammed this just like him after entering this question telling myself I needed to refresh my knowledge on conditionals!
@LawyeRell
Same here. I took much longer on this one, but considering time saved on other problems (idealy), better to get answer completely right than chance a wrong answer for speed.
im 3/3 so far on this chapter and under time on all which is hype.
but i am not writing anything nor using all the steps shown in the lessons, im kind of just going based off intuiton and mapping everything in my head.
hope it wont ruin me in the future.
@Arshavin im the same way, but you are two weeks ahead of me, has this come to bite you at all in the further stages of studying.
@JamesCochran so far this has been working for me, i had some trouble with questions that have EXCEPT because it's harder to hunt for the correct answer, have you experienced this
Normally I have not been writing down work. With problems like these, I have to. Is that a bad habit to start? Stupid question... but can you write anywhere on the test?
@AshlynMiller you get scratch paper with the LSAT
With this question, I got caught up in translating the claims using Group 4 indicators (like "not") which threw me off. How did you know to instead interpret the claim using "if"?
@AkshayaAnnampedu
hmm that's a good question but i think it just comes down to understanding the basics of conditional reasoning questions. this question is just saying "if this happens then this happens", it wants you to look at the bigger picture. IF does a great job in letting you know that you should pay attention to the concepts of the conditional.
For example:
If i did not win the lottery, then i did not buy a lottery ticket
/W --> /BT
If i bought a lottery ticket, then i won the lottery
BT --> W
This of it like this: If (i did not win the lottery), then (i did not buy a lottery ticket).
Notice that these are two concepts
If you did use the group 4 indicators it would look wonky! Check it out:
W --> /BT OR BT --> /W
Think of what these things are saying...
W --> /BT: If i won the lottery then i did NOT buy a lottery ticket? what the heck lol
BT --> /W: If i bought a lottery ticket, then i did NOT win the lottery? i mean-- no? buying a lottery ticket might make you a bit delusional given that we know our chances of winning are low but it doesn't mean it is 0 and this basically makes it 0...
NONE of these are logically equivalent to my first example.
When in doubt, take your time and translate your LAWGIC to english. I hope this helps! I know your comment is old but I thought I would post a reply for my own understanding and for others!
YESSIR 0:56 seconds. Man I would be so stuck on this type of question if I didn't go through the Lawgic modules. That has really helped, even just mentally, the difference between sufficient and necessary items.
I got it right, but it takes me so long, because I do not trust myself enough to not do POE
@CherishWilliams It took me a min too.
@CherishWilliams Same.
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?
@DavesHotChkn in my opinion as long as you are getting them right you have found a good method. writing things down is actually not preferred because you obviously can't on the actual lsat.
@DavesHotChkn I had this exact same concern a few questions back. I think it means you're intuitively getting the answers correct but it is a good skill to practice because you can use it as an anchor on harder questions.
@kiarahemani Oh, really? I thought that on the actual LSAT, they give you a piece of paper as well...
@Shannell_E'llan oh you can, i just meant it's a waste of time to write out a lot for each question most people are unable to
@DavesHotChkn Yeah I have been doing the same thing too! I was worried about it and honestly, if we start doing intuitive earlier it will help us when it comes to the test!
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!