Every part of me does not want to get to test day and feel obligated to have to physically right down the Lawgic, but I fear I have no choice if I want to get these types of questions correct.
This was the question that made me realize I can't ignore chaining and trying to work around that. If I had chained, I would have gotten the right answer immediately.
I spent the first couple of minutes looking at the statements. Realized I joined two conductions because of AND into S. Went back split them up and found my answer.
I think I kept assuming that a decrease in traffic AND an increase in consumers are necessary. But the increase in consumers is NOT necessary to increase profits. Oof
Wowwzers. I have been getting all these 15-30 seconds fast, but this one took me 1:40 over time to get. I kept eliminating every single answer. I finally had to actually diagram it out. I was intuitively saying “If COL decreases and traffic decreases, then profits will increase” But actually if profits increased then traffic decreased. Traffic decreased is necessary, but COL decreases is sufficient. Which means profits sits in between them. Wow
@lawshosh Congrats! This one was tricky for sure. If you got it that fast, means you have a good intuition for the fact traffic decrease was necessary, and follows if profits ineased.
@Njbrunette This is what had me stumped at first, since I felt like diagramming would take too long under timed conditions. But getting overwhelmed with a long conditional relationship and trying to do it in my head just eats up the time anyway (for this one at least, it was just so looooong)
Can someone remind me of when you can move the chain backwards? I chained it out correctly and I understood it, but I'm having trouble remembering why/when we can do the chain backwards.
I.e. /downtown traffic decrease -> /profits increasing -> /more consumers downtown -> /cost of living decrease
@emill1517 Or maybe I just misunderstood the explanation for answer A initially being wrong, it's sufficiency necessity confusion not the reverse chain?
@BDLSAT What helped me is getting used to the phrasing and grammar and then using the highlighting tool to separate sufficient and necessary conditions in the passage. For group 3 indicators I highlight them in orange since they are both stated as necessary conditions but can be negated to become sufficient ones.
Time is a constraint for all questions, as we know. Are you guys physically mapping out the stimulus via pen and paper? Or just in your head? I can't even tell what mapping method I am using half the time. Any tips are greatly appreciated.
@KaitM226 I physically map out the stimulus via pen and paper when I can! Doing so helped me answer correctly 15 seconds under the expected time for this question.
I find that it is easier in the long run to do this, even if I may be able to answer based on instinct or in my head because it helps set you up better for more challenging questions.
I got it right on accident, but it was a guess. I mistranslated the "unless" clause to mean that decreased congestion is necessary for increased profits.
After I finished answering and went to the blind review, I was like surely this is gonna be one minute over the target time, and somehow i got 23 seconds below. W
@AaliyahTaylor It's okay! You must work on accuracy first and then speed. It's like Mario Kart, you start with the lower speed and start increasing it as you improve your skills
Crazy that this is a 4/5 difficulty when it was so simple... the answer is literally a restatement of something in the stimulus, with the same combination of terms as well.
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.
306 comments
Every part of me does not want to get to test day and feel obligated to have to physically right down the Lawgic, but I fear I have no choice if I want to get these types of questions correct.
wow i got it correct in 58 seconds
took me 4 minutes what a waste of time wow.
Well I got it right but it took me nearly 10 minutes. A win is a win I guess lol
This was the question that made me realize I can't ignore chaining and trying to work around that. If I had chained, I would have gotten the right answer immediately.
@juancarlosln SAME
JY translates Lawgic so well
I decided to take the three day weekend off as a break. I came back to kick off my lessons and my brain feels like mush. Do not stray people. LOL
I spent the first couple of minutes looking at the statements. Realized I joined two conductions because of AND into S. Went back split them up and found my answer.
I think I kept assuming that a decrease in traffic AND an increase in consumers are necessary. But the increase in consumers is NOT necessary to increase profits. Oof
@danjpeach96 I did the same thing.
Wowwzers. I have been getting all these 15-30 seconds fast, but this one took me 1:40 over time to get. I kept eliminating every single answer. I finally had to actually diagram it out. I was intuitively saying “If COL decreases and traffic decreases, then profits will increase” But actually if profits increased then traffic decreased. Traffic decreased is necessary, but COL decreases is sufficient. Which means profits sits in between them. Wow
i overthinked and chose the sophisticated answer and got it wrong but got it right on blind review.
I was mixing up the last relationship which caused me to linger on this question for a bit but luckily I stuck to my guts and got it.
I got it right...in 4 minutes lmao.
I'm still very slow at conditional logic-- definitely something to work on! Unless in particular trips me up
LEVEL 4 DIFFICULTY AND UNDER TIME OMG OMG
@lawshosh Congrats! This one was tricky for sure. If you got it that fast, means you have a good intuition for the fact traffic decrease was necessary, and follows if profits ineased.
This one was tough… I chose A because I thought B was explicitly stated… I need to read more carefully
I got
Decrease cost --> More CLD + congestion decrease --> Profits increase
and I still got the correct answer. Is this another way to map this out correctly?
@strawberryicecream I did:
downtown traffic down ---> profits up <---- more people <---- decrease cost living
Don't worry about timing. Worry about the thought process to get to the right answer. Practicing that process over and over will increase speed.
@Njbrunette
@ManusWeber Enjin spotted
@Njbrunette This is what had me stumped at first, since I felt like diagramming would take too long under timed conditions. But getting overwhelmed with a long conditional relationship and trying to do it in my head just eats up the time anyway (for this one at least, it was just so looooong)
@ManusWeber omgg i love gachiakuta!!!
Can someone remind me of when you can move the chain backwards? I chained it out correctly and I understood it, but I'm having trouble remembering why/when we can do the chain backwards.
I.e. /downtown traffic decrease -> /profits increasing -> /more consumers downtown -> /cost of living decrease
@emill1517 Or maybe I just misunderstood the explanation for answer A initially being wrong, it's sufficiency necessity confusion not the reverse chain?
How the hell do you map this out in your head on the test in a time crunch??
@BDLSAT What helped me is getting used to the phrasing and grammar and then using the highlighting tool to separate sufficient and necessary conditions in the passage. For group 3 indicators I highlight them in orange since they are both stated as necessary conditions but can be negated to become sufficient ones.
yeah that needed to be a 4 difficulty
Time is a constraint for all questions, as we know. Are you guys physically mapping out the stimulus via pen and paper? Or just in your head? I can't even tell what mapping method I am using half the time. Any tips are greatly appreciated.
@KaitM226 I physically map out the stimulus via pen and paper when I can! Doing so helped me answer correctly 15 seconds under the expected time for this question.
I find that it is easier in the long run to do this, even if I may be able to answer based on instinct or in my head because it helps set you up better for more challenging questions.
Hope this helps!
@ChristyBee Thank you :)
I got it right on accident, but it was a guess. I mistranslated the "unless" clause to mean that decreased congestion is necessary for increased profits.
Time to go back and review!
@beneley2k Wait, I think it is?
After I finished answering and went to the blind review, I was like surely this is gonna be one minute over the target time, and somehow i got 23 seconds below. W
this question took me nine minutes to parce out...
@AaliyahTaylor It's okay! You must work on accuracy first and then speed. It's like Mario Kart, you start with the lower speed and start increasing it as you improve your skills
@juvargasc that’s hilarious bc my bf and i just seen the Mario movie last Wednesday. Thanks for the advice :)
Crazy that this is a 4/5 difficulty when it was so simple... the answer is literally a restatement of something in the stimulus, with the same combination of terms as well.