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.
Someone, please walk me through the last part, because it took me FOREVER to correctly translate the "unless" clause, and I would love a quick "hack" to reference for "unless" preceded by "will not." - It is simply a double negative??
@MarieChavis It's "negate sufficient". We take one part, negate it, and put it in the sufficient condition. The second will be in the necessary condition, but don't negate this part, leave it as it is.
So, I'm gonna negate the first part and the translation becomes "Profits will not increase" = profits will increase
@AnaMedeiros unless is a "negate-sufficient indicator" meaning that you pick either side of the conditional, negate it, and place it in the sufficient condition
@JoshGaller I got this wrong as well so I am going to try and explain hopefully this makes sense:
This is the final chain I ended up with
decrease in cost of living --> more consumers live DT --> profit increase --> traffic congestion decreases.
How you get there and specifically the last translation is by using "group 3 indicators for negate sufficient.)
more consumers DT-> profit increase
decrease in cost of living -> more consumers DT.
(so now we can link these two statements by putting decrease in cost of living in front of more consumers DT).
last statement is translated through the UNLESS rule. Take whatever comes after unless, put it in the sufficient place and then negate it. It should look like this: /traffic congestion decreases -> /profits increase.
(So look how can we link this if there both in the negative? we find the contrapositive to flip so we can link up profits increase)
@Mound take the argument chain as stated and find the contrapositive of it. The traffic claim then fits nicely at the very front of the contrapositive relationship of all these claims. Then translate back to the original now with the traffic equation. You will find that the traffic decrease is necessary for all of these claims. These claims are NOT necessary for the traffic increase. Therefore, not including it in the answer choice does not affect its validity
I also got this question wrong because I made the mistake of stubbornly trying to do the work in my head. I've now learned its not a bad idea to quickly jot this down on a piece of paper to visualize.
@Mound Visualize it on a piece of paper. It doesn't have to mention congestion-- it just needs to be a valid conditional chain/ statement that does not conflate the necessary and sufficient. If you properly visualized it, you would see that COL decreased -> Profit increase. That, even if a mere 'premise', is a valid conditional statement and therefore a MBT conclusion. A valid MBT answer doesn't have to bring all of the information together and touch on every component-- it solely needs to be a valid conditional statement that, once again, does not conflate the N and S. Every other answer choice, of you were to go by process of elimination, conflated the two; 'if' will always introduce the S, and none of the subjects following 'if' in the answer choices were sufficientconditions/ shared a sufficient influence over the subject in the 'necessary' position.
I understand where I was wrong however I went with my opinion and thought if traffic decrease then increase in people living because in the real world that can be true, less traffic more people living but then also that can increase the traffic, idkkk but basically forgot to do the rules for group 3
Doing the conditional and set logic was a STRUGGLE. It probably took me months... but oh my goodness, it is a must. Go this right (-1.22)!!!! My brain looks like a mad scientist's whiteboard mapping these conditional relationships... it finally works.
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.
276 comments
How the hell do you map this out in your head on the test in a time crunch??
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.
Someone, please walk me through the last part, because it took me FOREVER to correctly translate the "unless" clause, and I would love a quick "hack" to reference for "unless" preceded by "will not." - It is simply a double negative??
@MarieChavis yes just like in math they cancel out
@MarieChavis It's "negate sufficient". We take one part, negate it, and put it in the sufficient condition. The second will be in the necessary condition, but don't negate this part, leave it as it is.
So, I'm gonna negate the first part and the translation becomes "Profits will not increase" = profits will increase
Profits will increase --> congestion decreased
Hope this helps!
@MarieChavis This goes back to G3 sufficient indicators we learned in the very beginning.
@MarieChavis i got it wrong for this reason too and then realized my mistake in BR
Yay! Got it right and correctly wrote it out this time
LOL the lack of trust in myself - did the whole thing and in note pad wrote B can be true and chose A cause why not lol
Why wasn't the last necessary condition (trafic decreases) not negated since it is preceeded by "unless"?
@AnaMedeiros unless is a "negate-sufficient indicator" meaning that you pick either side of the conditional, negate it, and place it in the sufficient condition
DO NOT FEEL BAD THAT YOU ARE NOT MEETING TIMES! ITS BETTER TO UNDERSTAND CONCEPTS SLOWLY THAN TO MEET TIMES AND GET THEM WRONG!!!!!!
How does the final translation work?
In order for profits to decrease, downtown traffic must first decrease. So how can we place congestion decrease after profits increase in the chain?
@JoshGaller I got this wrong as well so I am going to try and explain hopefully this makes sense:
This is the final chain I ended up with
decrease in cost of living --> more consumers live DT --> profit increase --> traffic congestion decreases.
How you get there and specifically the last translation is by using "group 3 indicators for negate sufficient.)
more consumers DT-> profit increase
decrease in cost of living -> more consumers DT.
(so now we can link these two statements by putting decrease in cost of living in front of more consumers DT).
last statement is translated through the UNLESS rule. Take whatever comes after unless, put it in the sufficient place and then negate it. It should look like this: /traffic congestion decreases -> /profits increase.
(So look how can we link this if there both in the negative? we find the contrapositive to flip so we can link up profits increase)
Contrapositive= profit increase -> traffic congestion decreases.
(So look now we have a negated version that can cleanly link up to our pre existing chain.
Hope this helps!
Absolutely BUTCHERED this one. Reading through the description I now realize my ignorance, gotta start somewhere I guess.
i have never overcomplicated a question more in my life but i got it right !!
@lmfreed
Same with me. I had logic mapped out, and answer chosen immediately. But my 'common sense' said: "Naaaah. That doesn't make sense. Read it again."
Of course, the answer didn't change. And B was chosen.
got this right but 1:53 over... A WIN IS A WIN
[This comment was deleted.]
@Mound take the argument chain as stated and find the contrapositive of it. The traffic claim then fits nicely at the very front of the contrapositive relationship of all these claims. Then translate back to the original now with the traffic equation. You will find that the traffic decrease is necessary for all of these claims. These claims are NOT necessary for the traffic increase. Therefore, not including it in the answer choice does not affect its validity
I also got this question wrong because I made the mistake of stubbornly trying to do the work in my head. I've now learned its not a bad idea to quickly jot this down on a piece of paper to visualize.
@Mound Visualize it on a piece of paper. It doesn't have to mention congestion-- it just needs to be a valid conditional chain/ statement that does not conflate the necessary and sufficient. If you properly visualized it, you would see that COL decreased -> Profit increase. That, even if a mere 'premise', is a valid conditional statement and therefore a MBT conclusion. A valid MBT answer doesn't have to bring all of the information together and touch on every component-- it solely needs to be a valid conditional statement that, once again, does not conflate the N and S. Every other answer choice, of you were to go by process of elimination, conflated the two; 'if' will always introduce the S, and none of the subjects following 'if' in the answer choices were sufficientconditions/ shared a sufficient influence over the subject in the 'necessary' position.
I got it right. keep going guys!
I GOT IT RIGHTTTTT !!!!
right first try 56 seconds under hype hype
i was literally 5 mins over but i did it!!!!
I understand where I was wrong however I went with my opinion and thought if traffic decrease then increase in people living because in the real world that can be true, less traffic more people living but then also that can increase the traffic, idkkk but basically forgot to do the rules for group 3
Got it right i am the 8th sage
i got the answer right, but I did the logic with a conjunction :(
Doing the conditional and set logic was a STRUGGLE. It probably took me months... but oh my goodness, it is a must. Go this right (-1.22)!!!! My brain looks like a mad scientist's whiteboard mapping these conditional relationships... it finally works.