Makes me feel better that other people also felt this one was tricky. I’m glad my intuition helped me get the right answer because I had a hard time mapping the Lawgic. For some reason I didn’t make the connection in sentence 1 and sentence 2 that consumer living in DT increase and I separated the claims. I’m starting to apply the lessons while reading the stimulus so I’m feeling good. It took me about 3 mins but I got it right. Video helped me map out the lawgic. Also I’m glad I realized the and was not a conjunction but a separate conditional.
The hardest part of some LSAT questions to me is that sometimes the choices they give you are horrible. It feels like the actual rigth answer isnt there. So i waste time trying to find which choice either follows my logic or is closest to what the clear right answer is.
Took me forever to answer the question. I read the stimulus, tried to answer and was like nope, I need to diagram this all out and chain it together, so then had to reread the stimulus. then change them up on a piece of paper. No way I have enough time for this question on the LSAT. My brain just cannot do that all in my head. For those who can, you are not human!
#help for this part "a decrease in the cost of living in the downtown area will guarantee that the number of consumers living there will increase"
why isn't it Number of consumers living there increase -> decrease in cost of living?
I thought "guarantee" meant that the "cost of living in the downtown area" was what NEEDS to happen in order for the number of consumers living there to increase, so it would be a necessary condition
If it must be true that traffic congestion must decrease in order for downtown business profits to increase, then how can we assume that if the cost of living decreases, profits of downtown businesses will increase without knowing anything about downtown traffic?
Took me a while (over 20 minutes) But I needed to do this myself, I truly did not think B would be it, but doing the conditionals, thats what it came out to be. Trust your 'calculations' . Unless proven wrong.
I just want to share my experience so people don't feel alone. I struggled for a long time with drilling questions. I thought I'd never be able to do it. Now, I can drill them out correctly under time, and if not, I can appreciate a wrong answer as a chance to sharpen my skills. My greatest advice: keep a wrong answer journal, write out exactly why the correct answer is correct, and why all of the other answers are wrong. After some time, revisit questions in your journal and redo them blind. That'll show you if you have since gathered enough skill to complete it, or if it's still an area of difficulty. This has helped me tremendously.
How do we know that the unless in this post is not an exemption? I used the rule and exception framework and then realized I had something off when I got to the answers but how can I tell if something is a group three indictor or an exemption?
I understand that we can infer that if Profits Increase then that must mean that Traffic Congestion decreased. I am confused when we get to how B must be true. B says that Profits Will increase If the cost of living decreases. How do we know then that traffic decreased? Isn't it possible that the cost of living can decrease and also still have high traffic congestion? What am I missing?
there is no better feeling than getting a question wrong and not understanding it then working towards the right answer in the blind review, then watching the video being like "awww yeaa i'm smart I can do this"
Fortunately I got this one right, I was able to eliminate C and D since the questions relating to downtown congestion fall out of the causal chain, and E as well since it confuses sufficiency for necessity. It still took me a few minutes and I had to map out the logical relationship on paper, doing this under time constraints is gonna be a challenge.
yessssss 15 secs under time. This has been one of my weakest question types and I never thought I'd get it, but turns out drilling logical indicators, blind review, and question sets actually works
Why is it that profits increase leads to a decrease in congestion? Why is it linked into the chain as if profits increasing directly causes cogestion to decrease? Shouldn't the decrease in congestion just be an additional necessary condition that is required to have profits increase (in addition to the cost of living going down)?
nvm i found the reply in the comments. I was confusing a causal relationship with a conditional one. I didn't consider that if profits have increased, then we can definetely know that congestion has decreased, so we can chain it onto the end.
I was able to map everything out well, but I'm wasting a ton of time writing out every contrapositive because I'm not sure if I'll need it. Should I be chaining everything out first, and then take the contrapositive, or do I need to write every conditional contrapositive individually and just get faster?
I just wish I could be so fluent with conditionals, that I wouldn't have to draw them out. This makes me feel like I am writing math problems on water.
4
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
230 comments
I got it right but it literally took me 6 minutes lol
Makes me feel better that other people also felt this one was tricky. I’m glad my intuition helped me get the right answer because I had a hard time mapping the Lawgic. For some reason I didn’t make the connection in sentence 1 and sentence 2 that consumer living in DT increase and I separated the claims. I’m starting to apply the lessons while reading the stimulus so I’m feeling good. It took me about 3 mins but I got it right. Video helped me map out the lawgic. Also I’m glad I realized the and was not a conjunction but a separate conditional.
It tooketh me freaking 17min and 33sec to get to the correct answer and I refused to give up!!!
1: Cons(+) --> P$(+)
2: Cost(-) --> Cons(+)
3: /Traf(-) --> /P$(+)
Contra of 3: P$(+)-->Traf(-)
-----------------------------------
Combine them all, Therefore:
Cost(-)-->Cons(+)-->P$(+)-->Traf(-)
Use combined conditionals to test against answer choices:
Correct Answer:
Cost(-)-->P$(+)
The hardest part of some LSAT questions to me is that sometimes the choices they give you are horrible. It feels like the actual rigth answer isnt there. So i waste time trying to find which choice either follows my logic or is closest to what the clear right answer is.
Took me forever to answer the question. I read the stimulus, tried to answer and was like nope, I need to diagram this all out and chain it together, so then had to reread the stimulus. then change them up on a piece of paper. No way I have enough time for this question on the LSAT. My brain just cannot do that all in my head. For those who can, you are not human!
Dude this was tricky! I completely forgot the group 3 "unless" rule which made me get it wrong on my first go, but I remembered in in my BR
#help for this part "a decrease in the cost of living in the downtown area will guarantee that the number of consumers living there will increase"
why isn't it Number of consumers living there increase -> decrease in cost of living?
I thought "guarantee" meant that the "cost of living in the downtown area" was what NEEDS to happen in order for the number of consumers living there to increase, so it would be a necessary condition
I don't understand why but this section has been the most difficult for me so far out of everything else. I've gotten all these questions wrong
If it must be true that traffic congestion must decrease in order for downtown business profits to increase, then how can we assume that if the cost of living decreases, profits of downtown businesses will increase without knowing anything about downtown traffic?
Took me a while (over 20 minutes) But I needed to do this myself, I truly did not think B would be it, but doing the conditionals, thats what it came out to be. Trust your 'calculations' . Unless proven wrong.
I just want to share my experience so people don't feel alone. I struggled for a long time with drilling questions. I thought I'd never be able to do it. Now, I can drill them out correctly under time, and if not, I can appreciate a wrong answer as a chance to sharpen my skills. My greatest advice: keep a wrong answer journal, write out exactly why the correct answer is correct, and why all of the other answers are wrong. After some time, revisit questions in your journal and redo them blind. That'll show you if you have since gathered enough skill to complete it, or if it's still an area of difficulty. This has helped me tremendously.
I still dont understand necessary and sufficient at all
Hi! Can someone explain why it is not correct to assume Traffic Decrease -> Business Profit Increase?
How do we know that the unless in this post is not an exemption? I used the rule and exception framework and then realized I had something off when I got to the answers but how can I tell if something is a group three indictor or an exemption?
I understand that we can infer that if Profits Increase then that must mean that Traffic Congestion decreased. I am confused when we get to how B must be true. B says that Profits Will increase If the cost of living decreases. How do we know then that traffic decreased? Isn't it possible that the cost of living can decrease and also still have high traffic congestion? What am I missing?
there is no better feeling than getting a question wrong and not understanding it then working towards the right answer in the blind review, then watching the video being like "awww yeaa i'm smart I can do this"
Fortunately I got this one right, I was able to eliminate C and D since the questions relating to downtown congestion fall out of the causal chain, and E as well since it confuses sufficiency for necessity. It still took me a few minutes and I had to map out the logical relationship on paper, doing this under time constraints is gonna be a challenge.
this question made me nauseous
Do most of these mbt questions use conditional logic? I'm noticing that conditional logic is being used in most of the questions this module.
yessssss 15 secs under time. This has been one of my weakest question types and I never thought I'd get it, but turns out drilling logical indicators, blind review, and question sets actually works
Help!
Why is it that profits increase leads to a decrease in congestion? Why is it linked into the chain as if profits increasing directly causes cogestion to decrease? Shouldn't the decrease in congestion just be an additional necessary condition that is required to have profits increase (in addition to the cost of living going down)?
nvm i found the reply in the comments. I was confusing a causal relationship with a conditional one. I didn't consider that if profits have increased, then we can definetely know that congestion has decreased, so we can chain it onto the end.
Got it 😊
I COULD CRY! I did it!!!! First time clicking!
I was able to map everything out well, but I'm wasting a ton of time writing out every contrapositive because I'm not sure if I'll need it. Should I be chaining everything out first, and then take the contrapositive, or do I need to write every conditional contrapositive individually and just get faster?
I just wish I could be so fluent with conditionals, that I wouldn't have to draw them out. This makes me feel like I am writing math problems on water.