Can someone please help explain why the referential phrase, "in that case," refers to "the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices", only and not the whole sentence, "If the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase, the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices."?
These kinds of questions are beginning to make a lot of sense. I got the correct answer on the first try but went 10 seconds over the time. I just need more practice to recognize the connections faster.
wow. i spent about 7min trying to diagram this thing for good practice, but couldn't get it right. then just read through the ACs. A and B I couldn't really make sense of, then C was like "duh pick me" so I did. Didn't even glance at D/E. Not sure if practicing basics is helping or hurting me lol
Wow, I chose B. I definitely got caught up on the logically must-follow aspect of the wording (as in, I could definitely see a decrease in profitability from selling non-coffee products and a decrease in coffee sales). It's good to know that follows logically means "MUST BE TRUE" and no assumptions!
On my first try, I chose b, because I was thinking more about whether it sounded the most like it restated the question. I kind of forgot that it was asking me what must logically be true, and not what best restated the question.
I don't understand how B can be wrong. It follows the logic chain and the question asks about what follows most logically based on the statements in the passage, NOT just generally.
For D where he changed decrease to increase, how would the answer potentially be correct? Would that not be following the logic (or arrow) backwards? It reads as a causation type of thing for me.
Welcome to conditional reasoning! Ready to question everything you know about logic and thinking? Excited to feel existential dread and slam your brain cells in the blender of logic? Me too!
Here is my brain-rot explanation!
You will learn later in the course (the lesson is called Groups of Conditional Indicators Summary) about the different words that should turn on alarms in your head, saying HEY THIS IS CONDITIONAL LOGIC!
[If it helps, come back to this comment after that lesson, but here's a quick rundown]
There are 4 groups. Group 1 is called Sufficient Indicators, which means the first part of the logic chain (sufficient condition). This includes words like "if" and "all".
Group 2 is Necessary Indicators. Words like "only" and "only if" show that what follows is the necessary condition.
Example:
"If you are a dog, you are a good dog." = dog -> good dog
"Dogs get treats only if they are good dogs" = get treats -> good dogs
Groups 3 and 4 are negated versions of 1 and 2, respectively. I'm too lazy to describe it, but I really encourage you to take a look at that lesson.
Anywhoozies, The last sentence of the stimulus says, in brain-rot, "the cafe can avoid a decrease only if sales don't decrease," which in Lawgic translates to:
/decrease in overall profitability -> /sales decrease
Take the contrapositive and you get:
Coffee sales decrease -> Decrease in overall profitability
*You can refer to the illustration that the video shows at 10:17 here.
C is correct: "The cafe's overall profitability will decrease if the beans become expenny."
Translated into Lawgic:
Beans more expenny -> Cafe lose profitability
C matches the contrapositive of the last sentence of the stimulus, bingo.
TL;DR: Memorize the Groups of conditional indicators; it helps. Quoting Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in The Game Plan (2007),
I think the reason I struggle with the answer being C is the last sentence stating that they can avoid a decrease only if its coffee sales do not decrease. This difference makes it seem as though C could potential not be true. If profitablility decreases this does not necessarily mean that the price increased. It would be many things other than the coffee beans increasing in price.
I had to reorganize the question in my head to get this one. I copied and pasted the stimulus into my notes, and then started with what I thought was the most important information, which was the last sentence. The middle sections could also be condensed to make more sense. It took me longer than I'd like to admit to figure out why I got this one wrong, but i think i finally get it.
I'm a bit confused about the last sentence of the stimulus, specifically the section "only if coffee sales do not decrease." I take it to mean that this is the one and only scenario where the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability because of the word "only." Am I making an incorrect assumption? And if not, does that affect what the answer is at all?
I got it wrong because I thought C was too obvious. It's good, though, because now I can actually understand why it's the right answer and why the other ones are wrong rather than going off straight intuition.
6
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.
105 comments
Can someone please help explain why the referential phrase, "in that case," refers to "the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices", only and not the whole sentence, "If the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase, the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices."?
These kinds of questions are beginning to make a lot of sense. I got the correct answer on the first try but went 10 seconds over the time. I just need more practice to recognize the connections faster.
wow. i spent about 7min trying to diagram this thing for good practice, but couldn't get it right. then just read through the ACs. A and B I couldn't really make sense of, then C was like "duh pick me" so I did. Didn't even glance at D/E. Not sure if practicing basics is helping or hurting me lol
Wow, I chose B. I definitely got caught up on the logically must-follow aspect of the wording (as in, I could definitely see a decrease in profitability from selling non-coffee products and a decrease in coffee sales). It's good to know that follows logically means "MUST BE TRUE" and no assumptions!
lol I like to think that the noncoffee products are like redbull Italian sodas and not tshirts
22 minutes to get it right... i'm still sweating.
On my first try, I chose b, because I was thinking more about whether it sounded the most like it restated the question. I kind of forgot that it was asking me what must logically be true, and not what best restated the question.
i got it right but took 5 minutes...
I fell for the oldest trick in the book :/
do a and c not say the same thing?
This took me like 30 mins to get it wrong
Finally finished well under the time average AND got it right! Woohoo
I don't understand how B can be wrong. It follows the logic chain and the question asks about what follows most logically based on the statements in the passage, NOT just generally.
I got this wrong twice haha but the explanation made it very obvious. I did understand the without in answer D however.
Mapping it out makes answering this easy, but is there any cohesive way to do this under strict time constraints?
ok maybe I'm not cooked, i actually got this right
his explanation for C makes AC A work.
For D where he changed decrease to increase, how would the answer potentially be correct? Would that not be following the logic (or arrow) backwards? It reads as a causation type of thing for me.
I can't believe I actually got this right.
this is horrid
Welcome to conditional reasoning! Ready to question everything you know about logic and thinking? Excited to feel existential dread and slam your brain cells in the blender of logic? Me too!
Here is my brain-rot explanation!
You will learn later in the course (the lesson is called Groups of Conditional Indicators Summary) about the different words that should turn on alarms in your head, saying HEY THIS IS CONDITIONAL LOGIC!
[If it helps, come back to this comment after that lesson, but here's a quick rundown]
There are 4 groups. Group 1 is called Sufficient Indicators, which means the first part of the logic chain (sufficient condition). This includes words like "if" and "all".
Group 2 is Necessary Indicators. Words like "only" and "only if" show that what follows is the necessary condition.
Example:
"If you are a dog, you are a good dog." = dog -> good dog
"Dogs get treats only if they are good dogs" = get treats -> good dogs
Groups 3 and 4 are negated versions of 1 and 2, respectively. I'm too lazy to describe it, but I really encourage you to take a look at that lesson.
Anywhoozies, The last sentence of the stimulus says, in brain-rot, "the cafe can avoid a decrease only if sales don't decrease," which in Lawgic translates to:
/decrease in overall profitability -> /sales decrease
Take the contrapositive and you get:
Coffee sales decrease -> Decrease in overall profitability
*You can refer to the illustration that the video shows at 10:17 here.
C is correct: "The cafe's overall profitability will decrease if the beans become expenny."
Translated into Lawgic:
Beans more expenny -> Cafe lose profitability
C matches the contrapositive of the last sentence of the stimulus, bingo.
TL;DR: Memorize the Groups of conditional indicators; it helps. Quoting Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in The Game Plan (2007),
I think the reason I struggle with the answer being C is the last sentence stating that they can avoid a decrease only if its coffee sales do not decrease. This difference makes it seem as though C could potential not be true. If profitablility decreases this does not necessarily mean that the price increased. It would be many things other than the coffee beans increasing in price.
I had to reorganize the question in my head to get this one. I copied and pasted the stimulus into my notes, and then started with what I thought was the most important information, which was the last sentence. The middle sections could also be condensed to make more sense. It took me longer than I'd like to admit to figure out why I got this one wrong, but i think i finally get it.
I'm a bit confused about the last sentence of the stimulus, specifically the section "only if coffee sales do not decrease." I take it to mean that this is the one and only scenario where the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability because of the word "only." Am I making an incorrect assumption? And if not, does that affect what the answer is at all?
I got it wrong because I thought C was too obvious. It's good, though, because now I can actually understand why it's the right answer and why the other ones are wrong rather than going off straight intuition.