I just want to put this here as a reminder, based on the comments I'm seeing: we are in LR foundations, we are new to these lessons. I don't think it's wise for us to beat ourselves up over the fact that we are not getting the time we want. I reiterate, this is new to us, and thus, we should not be feeling bad or guilty that we aren't making better time on these questions. That will come with time. Once you get to the practice block of your study plan, then worry about timing. For now, this is still new and the point is to take our time. Thank you for listening to my TedTalk 😎
@GDatria715 then slow down. reading comp is much harder to adjust to later on than quickness is. quickness in comprehension simply comes with more practice. good luck!
@MissProsecutor at the end of the course, the drill section will emphasize what we need to study more. The inference questions come easier to me than the PAI, and I know for some of us this could be the exact opposite. As you say, dont fret, there's plenty of room to make up the difference.
I just don't understand how anyone could do this question quickly. I have no problem recognizing the right answer in practice, but on the test there's no way I'd have enough time for a question like this.
Speed comes with practice but I will add a strategy tip. Do the easy questions and do NOT waste any time on a question if you feel it being too hard. Skip it and come back if you have time. Don't take too long on a hard question and sacrifice time for other ones.
What I remind myself is that ALL questions are worth the SAME. Don't sacrifice time for one question when that can risk not having time for another or others!
You've got this! Don't be afraid to skip and come back if you need to.
@heron2078 I think once you see "If dt traffic congestion" in A,C and D you would know that there is no arrow generating from it and can immediately mark it off as wrong.
Similar thing with E, the prompt is "profit increase" and not "profit", so to negate profit increase can include profit remaining constant, not profit decrease. The stem just does not give us any info for a case where the profit decreases.
@Isra But wouldn't it be true that if traffic didn't decrease, then profits would not increase? Because "the profits won't increase if the traffic does not decrease."
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 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.
@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)
lawgic sure makes this easy to choose the right answer but there has to be strategy to help me find the answer faster. Took me almost 5 mins to choose B LOL
@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
Wouldn't the correct answer have to address the decrease in traffic congestion if that is the exception/last rule that the statement must follow. I eliminated answer choices that didn't mention traffic congestion because of this.
I am also confused why in the chain traffic congestion does not come before increased profits since the sentence reads that a decrease in traffic congestion is NECESSARY in order for a business to increase their profits.
This was my mistake as well, and I think we just have to stick to Lawgic and LSAT's own language rather than our own understanding of the world...lol.
This is my understanding after reviewing my error:
More consumers living downtown is SUFFICIENT to increase the profits of downtown businesses. Meaning if more consumers lived in downtown, the profits WILL DEFINITELY increase.
So in AC (B), we know that the cost of living in the downtown area decreasing is, again, SUFFICIENT to make more consumers live in the area. We also know that more consumers living in the area will increase the profits of businesses. So AC (B) must be true.
On the other hand, a decrease in downtown traffic congestion is NECESSARY to increase the profits of downtown businesses. This is equivalent to meaning that if we saw an increase in the profits of downtown businesses, we know for sure that the downtown traffic congestion decreased. I think the word 'NECESSARY' is tripping me out. Contrary to my typical understanding of the English language...the necessary condition has nothing to do with the cause of the phenomenon. We have to put it on the right side of the arrow because a phenomenon happening indicates to the conditions that are necessary for it to happen, but not the other way around. Whether the NECESSARY condition took place or not, it does not have an effect on the phenomenon.
Someone used a hot dog metaphor in another comment, so if I borrowed that, it would look something like:
(SUFFICIENT #1) If the kids are hungry, I will cook hot dogs.
(SUFFICIENT #2) The kids are always hungry after school.
(NECESSARY) The hot dogs will not be cooked if the stove is turned off.
In this example, it must be true that if the kids have school=they are hungry=I will cook hot dogs.
In the real world, we would pose the question "what if the stove is just..turned off?" But no, this is LSAT logic, and we just know that if the kids have school, they are hungry, and I will cook hot dogs, and cooking hot dogs just means the stove is on.
I was mostly thinking out loud for myself, but I hope this helps.
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.
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.
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?
I am confused on the last conditional, as to how an increase in business profit leads to a decrease in traffic congestion.
Isn't it the other way around?
The stimulus says there will not be an increase in downtown business profits unless traffic congestion decreases. Doesn't that mean that an increase in profits is reliant/dependent on the traffic congestion?
You might be confusing causal relationships with conditional ones.
The last sentence doesn't say that increased profits "leads to" a decrease in traffic congestion. It says that in order to have increased profits, it must be the case that there has been a decrease in traffic congestion. So, in other words, if we know that profits have increased, we know there must have been a decrease in traffic congestion. But this doesn't mean that the profits caused less congestion.
I'm having the same exact issue. I don't understand how B can be the correct answer. The stimulus tells us we need two things for the profits of downtown business to increase..
1) More people need to live in downtown
2) Traffic in downtown needs to goes down
These two conditions must be met in order for downtown business profits to go up. B only satisfies one of those conditions.
The entire order of arrow strategy doesn't change this fact. Make it make sense.
Can you tell me which sentence you believe implies that "more people need to live in downtown" is necessary for profits of downtown business to increase?
No, that's what the last sentence says. You're not wrong for getting that interpretation out of the stimulus. Decrease in traffic congestion is necessary for profit to increase.
But people sometimes think that the "decrease in traffic congestion" should be on the left and point to "profit increase." That's because they are thinking about this in causal terms -- they think the decreased congesetion must be something that helps cause more profits. This is the wrong approach. The arrow only represents conditionality, not cause. Decrease in traffic congestion is necessary for profit to increase. Whatever's necessary goes on the right side of the arrow.
348 comments
I just want to put this here as a reminder, based on the comments I'm seeing: we are in LR foundations, we are new to these lessons. I don't think it's wise for us to beat ourselves up over the fact that we are not getting the time we want. I reiterate, this is new to us, and thus, we should not be feeling bad or guilty that we aren't making better time on these questions. That will come with time. Once you get to the practice block of your study plan, then worry about timing. For now, this is still new and the point is to take our time. Thank you for listening to my TedTalk 😎
@MissProsecutor #staymotivated
@MissProsecutor what if im doing good on time but getting the answers wrong
@GDatria715 then slow down. reading comp is much harder to adjust to later on than quickness is. quickness in comprehension simply comes with more practice. good luck!
@MissProsecutor at the end of the course, the drill section will emphasize what we need to study more. The inference questions come easier to me than the PAI, and I know for some of us this could be the exact opposite. As you say, dont fret, there's plenty of room to make up the difference.
@MissProsecutor real. I was just about to cry about having poor timing but this comment really put my head up :)
I just don't understand how anyone could do this question quickly. I have no problem recognizing the right answer in practice, but on the test there's no way I'd have enough time for a question like this.
Speed comes with practice but I will add a strategy tip. Do the easy questions and do NOT waste any time on a question if you feel it being too hard. Skip it and come back if you have time. Don't take too long on a hard question and sacrifice time for other ones.
What I remind myself is that ALL questions are worth the SAME. Don't sacrifice time for one question when that can risk not having time for another or others!
You've got this! Don't be afraid to skip and come back if you need to.
As soon as I saw the correct answer, I ended it. Probably not the smartest but if it must be true than it must be true.
*then
@heron2078 I think once you see "If dt traffic congestion" in A,C and D you would know that there is no arrow generating from it and can immediately mark it off as wrong.
Similar thing with E, the prompt is "profit increase" and not "profit", so to negate profit increase can include profit remaining constant, not profit decrease. The stem just does not give us any info for a case where the profit decreases.
@Isra But wouldn't it be true that if traffic didn't decrease, then profits would not increase? Because "the profits won't increase if the traffic does not decrease."
DO NOT FEEL BAD THAT YOU ARE NOT MEETING TIMES! ITS BETTER TO UNDERSTAND CONCEPTS SLOWLY THAN TO MEET TIMES AND GET THEM WRONG!!!!!!
proud of myself for doing this chain correctly, those foundations are paying off!
this question made me nauseous
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
Well I got it right but it took me nearly 10 minutes. A win is a win I guess lol
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.
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!!!
I've gotten the last two correct, but I'm targeting accuracy first and then will work on my speed.
It took me 5 minutes to get this problem right...I'm hoping practice will improve my time on these specific questions....
we have all been there!!!! :) happened to me last question
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
took forever but got it right! type shi
yesss same lol
took me about 20 minutes but I get it now
lawgic sure makes this easy to choose the right answer but there has to be strategy to help me find the answer faster. Took me almost 5 mins to choose B LOL
I picked A, had to fight the urge to flip a table when I found out it was wrong.
Sameeeeeee
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 :)
Ive been doing all these correctly and super fast in my head, all I do is 3 things and it works like magic.
I memorized the argument forms and if nothing looks like that, its WRONG
I never forget about the contrapositives since the right answer can be a contrapositive as well
I never try to forget about switching necessity and sufficiency
#help
Wouldn't the correct answer have to address the decrease in traffic congestion if that is the exception/last rule that the statement must follow. I eliminated answer choices that didn't mention traffic congestion because of this.
I am also confused why in the chain traffic congestion does not come before increased profits since the sentence reads that a decrease in traffic congestion is NECESSARY in order for a business to increase their profits.
This was my thought process can anyone explain
same thought
This was my mistake as well, and I think we just have to stick to Lawgic and LSAT's own language rather than our own understanding of the world...lol.
This is my understanding after reviewing my error:
More consumers living downtown is SUFFICIENT to increase the profits of downtown businesses. Meaning if more consumers lived in downtown, the profits WILL DEFINITELY increase.
So in AC (B), we know that the cost of living in the downtown area decreasing is, again, SUFFICIENT to make more consumers live in the area. We also know that more consumers living in the area will increase the profits of businesses. So AC (B) must be true.
On the other hand, a decrease in downtown traffic congestion is NECESSARY to increase the profits of downtown businesses. This is equivalent to meaning that if we saw an increase in the profits of downtown businesses, we know for sure that the downtown traffic congestion decreased. I think the word 'NECESSARY' is tripping me out. Contrary to my typical understanding of the English language...the necessary condition has nothing to do with the cause of the phenomenon. We have to put it on the right side of the arrow because a phenomenon happening indicates to the conditions that are necessary for it to happen, but not the other way around. Whether the NECESSARY condition took place or not, it does not have an effect on the phenomenon.
Someone used a hot dog metaphor in another comment, so if I borrowed that, it would look something like:
(SUFFICIENT #1) If the kids are hungry, I will cook hot dogs.
(SUFFICIENT #2) The kids are always hungry after school.
(NECESSARY) The hot dogs will not be cooked if the stove is turned off.
In this example, it must be true that if the kids have school=they are hungry=I will cook hot dogs.
In the real world, we would pose the question "what if the stove is just..turned off?" But no, this is LSAT logic, and we just know that if the kids have school, they are hungry, and I will cook hot dogs, and cooking hot dogs just means the stove is on.
I was mostly thinking out loud for myself, but I hope this helps.
bruh. i literally did the chaining correctly but didnt choose the correct answer cause i got confused!!!! the lsat does not fail to humble me
sameeee lol rip us
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.
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.
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?
Trying to beat the target time feels like I'm playing Mario Kart.
I am confused on the last conditional, as to how an increase in business profit leads to a decrease in traffic congestion.
Isn't it the other way around?
The stimulus says there will not be an increase in downtown business profits unless traffic congestion decreases. Doesn't that mean that an increase in profits is reliant/dependent on the traffic congestion?
You might be confusing causal relationships with conditional ones.
The last sentence doesn't say that increased profits "leads to" a decrease in traffic congestion. It says that in order to have increased profits, it must be the case that there has been a decrease in traffic congestion. So, in other words, if we know that profits have increased, we know there must have been a decrease in traffic congestion. But this doesn't mean that the profits caused less congestion.
I'm having the same exact issue. I don't understand how B can be the correct answer. The stimulus tells us we need two things for the profits of downtown business to increase..
1) More people need to live in downtown
2) Traffic in downtown needs to goes down
These two conditions must be met in order for downtown business profits to go up. B only satisfies one of those conditions.
The entire order of arrow strategy doesn't change this fact. Make it make sense.
Can you tell me which sentence you believe implies that "more people need to live in downtown" is necessary for profits of downtown business to increase?
I think that we are falling for a trap by thinking that a decrease in traffic congestion is necessary for profit increases. Is this not a necessity?
No, that's what the last sentence says. You're not wrong for getting that interpretation out of the stimulus. Decrease in traffic congestion is necessary for profit to increase.
But people sometimes think that the "decrease in traffic congestion" should be on the left and point to "profit increase." That's because they are thinking about this in causal terms -- they think the decreased congesetion must be something that helps cause more profits. This is the wrong approach. The arrow only represents conditionality, not cause. Decrease in traffic congestion is necessary for profit to increase. Whatever's necessary goes on the right side of the arrow.
This made it click for me. I was stumped. Thanks, Kevin!
Thank you Kevin! I understand it now.