I diagramed this as a biconditional and that led me to choose A even though I had my alarms go off for "the only" being too extreme. But I got rid of my doubt becasue I diagrammed a bi-conditional when it is in fact a causal relationship. But even if it is fact a biconditional claim, A fails for another reason.
JY explicitly notes that this biconditional chain is only a map of historical facts for a specific "domain of discourse" (the decades between 1970 and 2010). It just means: During those specific years, whenever one doubled, the other doubled too.
Answer (A) takes that historical observation and tries to turn it into a universal law of physics for all of time. It says increasing transistors is the only effective way to do it, period. Even if they always happened together in the past, you cannot logically prove that transistors are the only physical way to achieve that speed in the future.
i almost did C before swapping to D. my reason was becasue the phrase "last several decades" tripped me up since i figured that was too vague for an answer.
Difficulty scores are very interesting to me. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, but often I find myself easily answering 3, 4, and even level 5 difficulty questions correctly, but getting tripped up on level 1 and 2 problems. I wonder if its actually just a personal observation bias situation where I only notice when I do especially well on a more difficult question or have an especially hard time on an easier question.
I am so confused. I read D and was like wait isn’t this explicitly stated in the stim? Got it right this time but I feel like I mad an assumption or something that could bite me later. Seems D is not only obvious, not only MBT, but explicitly stated in the prompt. I don’t see what I’m assuming though.
EDIT: Oh I see. The stim says “x2 speed accompanied by x2 cost”. And D) says “x2 cost accompanied by x2 transistors”
But since x2 transistors is the same as x2 speed, and “accompanied by” is bidirectional by definition, this is all the same, which is the test of the question.
I don't understand how we can assume that the doubling in speed that occurred during the mid-1990s was also achieved by doubling transistors. Therefore, we can't be certain doubling cost accompanied doubling transistors. What if they developed a different way to speed up a chip's computing speed (besides doubling transistors)? That explanation would also align with the sudden onset in rising costs in the mid-1990's, too. Is the wording/grammar of "each SUCH doubling in a microchip's computing speed" supposed to indicate that the doubling was achieved in the same way?
@mmartinez130 Hi! I think this was actually explicitly stated in the stimulus. The first sentence uses "hence" to indicate that the doubling in computing speed is resulting from/caused by the doubling number of transistors. The stimulus continues with "...from the mid-1990s into the next decade, each such doubling in a microchip's computing speed was accompanied by a doubling in the cost of producing that microchip." Here, "such" is referring to the doubling of microchip's computing speed through the doubling of number of transistors, and thus indicates the doubling cost of producing the microchips also accompanied the doubling number of transistors.
I cannot understand how he is right when he says "Each time there was a doubling in cost, oh, look, there was a doubling in the number of transistors in those chips. ya that must be true." when explaining D.
This feels like he's committed the "most classic trap". The only information he has is that a doubling of transistors means a doubling of cost, not the doubling of cost means the doubling of transistors. He gets the problem right but seems to explain it wrong.
@JohnYule Yeah, you're right there is a mis-speak in that moment. What he means is that each time there was a doubling in speed, there was a doubling in cost. Which is why we can say that a doubling in cost "accompanied" (meaning, happened along with) a doubling in speed.
@JohnYule I thought the same thing, but I don't think this is making a conditional statement more like a biconditional but even then, I didn't see it like that at first. I spent like 30 seconds thinking about it but "accompanied" didn't trigger necessity or sufficiency in my mind so I understood it as the two things (doubling transistors and doubling cost) to be affected simultaneously. Almost like a graph with an x axis and y axis. Its explained better in the last 2 minutes of the video.
Help? Can some explain to me why and how are we able to (or allowed to) assume that the subset of mid-1990's subset falls into the "for several decades" superset? Isn't it possible that there is no overlap in time period? Can't "for several decades" refer to the 1920's? Am I missing something here?
@CL10235 Hi, the grammar indicates that the "several decades" is the most recent several decades through the use of "has". If the statement said "For several decades, microchip speed doubled", we wouldn't really know whether this group of decades happened in the early 20th century or in the LAST few decades. But when they say "For several decades, microchip speed HAS doubled", we know that it refers to the last few decades.
Said differently (online source): "The difference between "has done" (present perfect) and "did" (simple past/past done) lies in the relationship of the action to the present moment. "Has done" links a past action to the present (result, experience, or recent completion), while "did" indicates a completed action at a specific time in the past with no necessary connection to the present."
Such an easy question, but took me 12 min, and did not comprehend, that the doubling of the cost after the mid 1990s, was not a one off occurrence. Its been 6 hours, time to log off.
I got this one right, but my timing is very high like almost 4 minutes more than the expected time, but I am finally feeling way way better about this exam!
how are we supposed to distinguish between answers that restate evidence (that are incorrect) and then answers that restate the passage that are correct? Can that be inferred from the question type?
@AlexHaro Well, if you have a "properly inferred" question, then a restatement of content in the premise would certainly be the correct answer. However, if the question is "what is the conclusion" then any part of the premise in an answer that is not the conclusion would be wrong. So short answer, yes.
150 comments
I diagramed this as a biconditional and that led me to choose A even though I had my alarms go off for "the only" being too extreme. But I got rid of my doubt becasue I diagrammed a bi-conditional when it is in fact a causal relationship. But even if it is fact a biconditional claim, A fails for another reason.
JY explicitly notes that this biconditional chain is only a map of historical facts for a specific "domain of discourse" (the decades between 1970 and 2010). It just means: During those specific years, whenever one doubled, the other doubled too.
Answer (A) takes that historical observation and tries to turn it into a universal law of physics for all of time. It says increasing transistors is the only effective way to do it, period. Even if they always happened together in the past, you cannot logically prove that transistors are the only physical way to achieve that speed in the future.
Chose C at first and then D in the BR!
0/1 but got it right on blind review
i picked d, but then switched my answer only because i thought d is just basically repeating the stimuli
Happy Sunday everyone
i almost did C before swapping to D. my reason was becasue the phrase "last several decades" tripped me up since i figured that was too vague for an answer.
@GDatria715 What if they had made attempts but those attempts failed? The text is unclear on both of our points, that's why C is wrong.
Difficulty scores are very interesting to me. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, but often I find myself easily answering 3, 4, and even level 5 difficulty questions correctly, but getting tripped up on level 1 and 2 problems. I wonder if its actually just a personal observation bias situation where I only notice when I do especially well on a more difficult question or have an especially hard time on an easier question.
Totally unrelated- but has anyone else noticed that the interface that you answer drills/questions on has changed?
@SydneyRoper yeah, is this permanent? i really preferred the old UI
@RaniyaChowdhury me too :(
@SydneyRoper Yes! It is to reflect the new LSAT interface. So these questions have the same "look" that the August LSAT will have
@AudreyMills Ahhh! good to know!! thank you so much!
MAYBE IF I KNEW HOW TO READ CORRECTLY, I COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION CORRECTLY.
From here on out, my monitor better start flinching when i click submit..
I am so confused. I read D and was like wait isn’t this explicitly stated in the stim? Got it right this time but I feel like I mad an assumption or something that could bite me later. Seems D is not only obvious, not only MBT, but explicitly stated in the prompt. I don’t see what I’m assuming though.
EDIT: Oh I see. The stim says “x2 speed accompanied by x2 cost”. And D) says “x2 cost accompanied by x2 transistors”
But since x2 transistors is the same as x2 speed, and “accompanied by” is bidirectional by definition, this is all the same, which is the test of the question.
@danjpeach96 Same, I spent so long on this question cause D felt wrong because it was so similar to the passage
@danjpeach96 While I was reading the passage I said speed = transistors, which turned out to be what they were asking about.
Eliminated wrong answer choices made this very easy for me.
B, C, E all go way outside of what the stim says. retail cost? engineers focused on? engineers will ever be able to? All never stated or implied.
A does a classic. It takes a given statement/result (raised speeds) and says its the only cause/result. Also not implied in the stim.
Therefore even if D is a little confusing, all the others are 100% wrong.
@Rose955 B, C, & D are wrong, but D is right?
@danjpeach96 A typo, apologies!
It's questions like these that make me feel the need to boost my vocabulary. The use of "fabricated" made me hesitant.
help!!, i am getting my blind reviews right but cant seem to get it right the first time
I don't understand how we can assume that the doubling in speed that occurred during the mid-1990s was also achieved by doubling transistors. Therefore, we can't be certain doubling cost accompanied doubling transistors. What if they developed a different way to speed up a chip's computing speed (besides doubling transistors)? That explanation would also align with the sudden onset in rising costs in the mid-1990's, too. Is the wording/grammar of "each SUCH doubling in a microchip's computing speed" supposed to indicate that the doubling was achieved in the same way?
@mmartinez130 Hi! I think this was actually explicitly stated in the stimulus. The first sentence uses "hence" to indicate that the doubling in computing speed is resulting from/caused by the doubling number of transistors. The stimulus continues with "...from the mid-1990s into the next decade, each such doubling in a microchip's computing speed was accompanied by a doubling in the cost of producing that microchip." Here, "such" is referring to the doubling of microchip's computing speed through the doubling of number of transistors, and thus indicates the doubling cost of producing the microchips also accompanied the doubling number of transistors.
Whyyyyy do I get the level 5s right and the easier ones wrong
I cannot understand how he is right when he says "Each time there was a doubling in cost, oh, look, there was a doubling in the number of transistors in those chips. ya that must be true." when explaining D.
This feels like he's committed the "most classic trap". The only information he has is that a doubling of transistors means a doubling of cost, not the doubling of cost means the doubling of transistors. He gets the problem right but seems to explain it wrong.
@JohnYule Yeah, you're right there is a mis-speak in that moment. What he means is that each time there was a doubling in speed, there was a doubling in cost. Which is why we can say that a doubling in cost "accompanied" (meaning, happened along with) a doubling in speed.
@JohnYule I thought the same thing, but I don't think this is making a conditional statement more like a biconditional but even then, I didn't see it like that at first. I spent like 30 seconds thinking about it but "accompanied" didn't trigger necessity or sufficiency in my mind so I understood it as the two things (doubling transistors and doubling cost) to be affected simultaneously. Almost like a graph with an x axis and y axis. Its explained better in the last 2 minutes of the video.
Help? Can some explain to me why and how are we able to (or allowed to) assume that the subset of mid-1990's subset falls into the "for several decades" superset? Isn't it possible that there is no overlap in time period? Can't "for several decades" refer to the 1920's? Am I missing something here?
@CL10235 Hi, the grammar indicates that the "several decades" is the most recent several decades through the use of "has". If the statement said "For several decades, microchip speed doubled", we wouldn't really know whether this group of decades happened in the early 20th century or in the LAST few decades. But when they say "For several decades, microchip speed HAS doubled", we know that it refers to the last few decades.
Said differently (online source): "The difference between "has done" (present perfect) and "did" (simple past/past done) lies in the relationship of the action to the present moment. "Has done" links a past action to the present (result, experience, or recent completion), while "did" indicates a completed action at a specific time in the past with no necessary connection to the present."
YAY!! First time I've been under the time limit and got it right!
yayay got it right and was only 5 seconds over the time frame! :)
Thank you, Chip War.
Such an easy question, but took me 12 min, and did not comprehend, that the doubling of the cost after the mid 1990s, was not a one off occurrence. Its been 6 hours, time to log off.
I got this one right, but my timing is very high like almost 4 minutes more than the expected time, but I am finally feeling way way better about this exam!
how are we supposed to distinguish between answers that restate evidence (that are incorrect) and then answers that restate the passage that are correct? Can that be inferred from the question type?
@AlexHaro Well, if you have a "properly inferred" question, then a restatement of content in the premise would certainly be the correct answer. However, if the question is "what is the conclusion" then any part of the premise in an answer that is not the conclusion would be wrong. So short answer, yes.
This was such an obvious answer, but I selected C because I thought I was being thrown a curveball. Smh.
@ElliotRosin This is so relatable. I keep overthinking these questions.