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?
Re: D, why isn't it possible that the price could've doubled without the speed/transistors doubling? Couldn't there have been other reasons, at intervals other than 18 months?
I sort of get that the word "accompanied" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here, but when JY draws the bi-conditional it destroys my understanding of the relationship.
Does anyone else sometiems feel llike they dont see all the questions until they retake or do blind review? D is so clearly the answer but i dont remember seeing it before i went back to review.
Am I the only one who thought that fabricating in question D meant creating fake versions of microchips. With that definition in mind i felt like the passage didn't say anything about making fake chips so i just guessed.
I was down to C and D and chose C because I felt like D simply restated the conclusion.. like how is that an inference? After the explanation, I know why I was wrong though
#feedback "Causation v. Conditional" link is not working. I presume this video would be quite important to understand why JY applied double arrows of Lawgic in this stimulus. I've gone through all fundamentals available but cannot comprehend this piece.
Adding the part about the biconditional arrows only serves to confuse We can already see from the stimulus that the transistors are what cause the doubling, and it's already specified that each such doubling (which is the doubling in speed caused by the doubling in the number of tansistors) from a smaller subset of time doubles the cost. I would rather not get confused about causation and keep rules consistent.
I’ve done all of V1 LR section with JY before coming onto v2 just for practice. I notice JY is much nicer at explaining these questions compared to his V1 aggressive judgmental attitude towards wrong answer choices. Change of heart?
Sometimes when i try to draw an inference I guess I get confused with answers that are saying something about the future that's what led me to choose E like I felt E was taking the info from the stimulus and was inferring that, I get confused in what questions are we allow to infer #help
I assumed C was wrong because it also says "for the last several decades", when the prompt doesn't actually indicate the current year/decade. A bit silly but I think this article could technically be written from the perspective of 2060 or something, so "the last several decades" may not be appropriate in relative terms.
Good thing I didn't understand what B said otherwise I might've picked it
24
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!
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.
118 comments
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?
This was such an obvious answer, but I selected C because I thought I was being thrown a curveball. Smh.
#help
Re: D, why isn't it possible that the price could've doubled without the speed/transistors doubling? Couldn't there have been other reasons, at intervals other than 18 months?
I sort of get that the word "accompanied" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here, but when JY draws the bi-conditional it destroys my understanding of the relationship.
I though D was a mistaken reversal until BR where I noticed "accompanied each"... I need to slow down.
Does anyone else sometiems feel llike they dont see all the questions until they retake or do blind review? D is so clearly the answer but i dont remember seeing it before i went back to review.
I got this one right and under time..yay.
Am I the only one who thought that fabricating in question D meant creating fake versions of microchips. With that definition in mind i felt like the passage didn't say anything about making fake chips so i just guessed.
got it right! 30 seconds over but regardless ... interesting how im doing better on these latter questions than the first, a good sign lol
i cant believe i was cooking on the first few questions in this module and now i'm getting all of them wrong lmao
Would C be right if they asked for a hypothesis
I was down to C and D and chose C because I felt like D simply restated the conclusion.. like how is that an inference? After the explanation, I know why I was wrong though
How was anyone affording a computer from 1995 to 2005 lol????
not me getting the answer right but the blind review question wrong...am i happy about it?
#feedback "Causation v. Conditional" link is not working. I presume this video would be quite important to understand why JY applied double arrows of Lawgic in this stimulus. I've gone through all fundamentals available but cannot comprehend this piece.
Couldn't we have also used a causal chain going from 2x #t to 2x speed?
Adding the part about the biconditional arrows only serves to confuse We can already see from the stimulus that the transistors are what cause the doubling, and it's already specified that each such doubling (which is the doubling in speed caused by the doubling in the number of tansistors) from a smaller subset of time doubles the cost. I would rather not get confused about causation and keep rules consistent.
I’ve done all of V1 LR section with JY before coming onto v2 just for practice. I notice JY is much nicer at explaining these questions compared to his V1 aggressive judgmental attitude towards wrong answer choices. Change of heart?
I always pick the right answer the first time and then get it wrong on the blind review. Does anyone have advice on how to approach this problem?
Sometimes when i try to draw an inference I guess I get confused with answers that are saying something about the future that's what led me to choose E like I felt E was taking the info from the stimulus and was inferring that, I get confused in what questions are we allow to infer #help
I assumed C was wrong because it also says "for the last several decades", when the prompt doesn't actually indicate the current year/decade. A bit silly but I think this article could technically be written from the perspective of 2060 or something, so "the last several decades" may not be appropriate in relative terms.
Good thing I didn't understand what B said otherwise I might've picked it