The way I got this right when I was studying on LawHub and then failed it here…. ugh 😭
One difference was I definitely broke it down in a diagram when I did it before but not here. I’m just wondering how to do that without taking too much time.
I eliminated C because I thought that the Shoppe can avoid decrease in overall profitability as long as coffee sales do not decrease.
Is it because it's an "only if" statement, that would need to be mentioned in the answer? The possibility of that occurring is why I eliminated C and chose B. (I understand why B is incorrect.)
Can someone explain why the last sentence was disregarded? To me, it seems that overall profitability would not decrease, despite the increase in coffee bean prices, if sales do not decrease. Essentially, if customers continue paying the inflated prices, profitability remains unchanged. I think part of what is throwing me off is the word “moreover,” since it suggests that the sentence is adding to what was previously said, rather than introducing a separate idea.
@RebeccaNero I think the central issue is just that we need to understand "only if" doesn't mean "if." No matter how much it sounds like it does, it just doesn't.
I see @Creech interprets the last sentence as "If sales don't decrease, then profits won't decrease."
But the last sentence is actually saying "If profits don't decrease, that requires sales to not decrease." In other words, "If sales decrease, then profits will decrease."
That doesn't mean "If sales don't decrease, then profits won't decrease."
Here's an analogous statement:
"One can avoid poverty only if one does not drop out before high school." This is saying that avoiding poverty requires not dropping out of high school. So if you are not in poverty, then you did not drop out of high school. In other words, if you do drop out of high schools, then you will be in poverty.
But it's not saying that if you don't drop out, you won't be in poverty. There could be many other ways to still end up in poverty even if you don't drop out.
In my module, I completed the grammar section before, but when referring to these questions now, it's hard to break it up with all this new info. Any suggestions? Kinda feels like I just forgot all the grammar when I literally just studied it :/
The first time I did this question in lawhub, I was very confused and chose the wrong answer. I tried my best to figure out why this answer choice (C) was the correct one, and it seems I kept making head canons why this was the answer. But finally looking at this video, I realized that the stimulus was doing a causation format like "A causes B... B causes C... so ultimately A causes C". I think the one sentence that really threw me off was the "In the case, either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease". First time, I interpreted that as "coffee shoppe will sell noncoffee products or else, coffee sales will decrease"; but in actuality, the stimulus meant it as the "increase in prices will lead to two possible outcomes."
This one was quick for me. More expensive coffee=less coffee made=less coffee sold=decreased profitability. Breaking the question down into smaller pieces made this one easier
maybe im just tired but saying that coffee shops will have to begin selling noncoffe products OR the coffee sales will decrease, to then say that selling those noncoffee products will decrease the shoppes overall profitability is contradicting and messed me up when trying to think about this "logically".
my biggest issue here is time, I've been getting better at at figuring out the logic, but not quick enough. does anyone have any tips on getting quicker?
I've never done this before so I was excited to test it out; I got it wrong, but I want to come back at the end of the module to see if I can apply what I learned to get right next time!
I came back and it was indeed much easier to figure out!
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
148 comments
got it right, but took way too long.
The way I got this right when I was studying on LawHub and then failed it here…. ugh 😭
One difference was I definitely broke it down in a diagram when I did it before but not here. I’m just wondering how to do that without taking too much time.
very easy to understand, but the problem is I took to long to answer. 2:33 minutes, wish the LSAT was untimed lol
I eliminated C because I thought that the Shoppe can avoid decrease in overall profitability as long as coffee sales do not decrease.
Is it because it's an "only if" statement, that would need to be mentioned in the answer? The possibility of that occurring is why I eliminated C and chose B. (I understand why B is incorrect.)
Finally starting diagramming, seems very helpful, but not time efficient
grateful for my math degree rn lol
I HATE YOU LSAT
@SwagOD 😭
This question tripped me up mentally lol. I took longer on this question but got it right the first time.
I spend a lot of time on this question but at least I got it right ;)
I picked D then got it right during the blind review. I was stuck between C and D the whole time.
Can someone explain why the last sentence was disregarded? To me, it seems that overall profitability would not decrease, despite the increase in coffee bean prices, if sales do not decrease. Essentially, if customers continue paying the inflated prices, profitability remains unchanged. I think part of what is throwing me off is the word “moreover,” since it suggests that the sentence is adding to what was previously said, rather than introducing a separate idea.
@Creech yeah I just went back and also cannot figure that out.
@Creech @Kevin_Lin Could you help with this? I am also wondering
@Creech what I did was put it as a separate chain. for me i had 3 separate chain I didn't do the or I separated it.
price paid for beans increase -> increase price -> sell non coffee products -> decrease profitability
price paid for beans increase -> increase price -> coffee sales decrease -> decrease profitability
for the 2nd chain i know it the overall profitability decrease because I use the last sentence cause it said only if coffee sales do not decrease
before my chain was
price paid for beans increase -> increase price -> coffee sales decrease
then reading the last one I added decrease profitability to it
cause last sentence was to me was basically
overall probability don't decrease -> coffee sales don't decrease
so in the answer choices I was looking for the one that follow my chains that i had
I'm just sharing my explaining not sure if that the right process cause i feel like if your chain wrong then everything wrong
however this did take sometime to me to do though
@RebeccaNero I think the central issue is just that we need to understand "only if" doesn't mean "if." No matter how much it sounds like it does, it just doesn't.
I see @Creech interprets the last sentence as "If sales don't decrease, then profits won't decrease."
But the last sentence is actually saying "If profits don't decrease, that requires sales to not decrease." In other words, "If sales decrease, then profits will decrease."
That doesn't mean "If sales don't decrease, then profits won't decrease."
Here's an analogous statement:
"One can avoid poverty only if one does not drop out before high school." This is saying that avoiding poverty requires not dropping out of high school. So if you are not in poverty, then you did not drop out of high school. In other words, if you do drop out of high schools, then you will be in poverty.
But it's not saying that if you don't drop out, you won't be in poverty. There could be many other ways to still end up in poverty even if you don't drop out.
Very first time diagraming and it was actually helpful.
i remember encountering this while drilling... now after going through the lesson plan, i FINALLY understand it
In my module, I completed the grammar section before, but when referring to these questions now, it's hard to break it up with all this new info. Any suggestions? Kinda feels like I just forgot all the grammar when I literally just studied it :/
@isabellagirjikian Same... have you figured out a helpful method yet?
@VerdaSlay I haven't unfortunately yet
this f'd me up
what the actual hell was this?
@TeklaCo real talk.
The first time I did this question in lawhub, I was very confused and chose the wrong answer. I tried my best to figure out why this answer choice (C) was the correct one, and it seems I kept making head canons why this was the answer. But finally looking at this video, I realized that the stimulus was doing a causation format like "A causes B... B causes C... so ultimately A causes C". I think the one sentence that really threw me off was the "In the case, either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease". First time, I interpreted that as "coffee shoppe will sell noncoffee products or else, coffee sales will decrease"; but in actuality, the stimulus meant it as the "increase in prices will lead to two possible outcomes."
Heck yeah got it right first try and quickly!
This one was quick for me. More expensive coffee=less coffee made=less coffee sold=decreased profitability. Breaking the question down into smaller pieces made this one easier
@rosenb1um Ditto!!
maybe im just tired but saying that coffee shops will have to begin selling noncoffe products OR the coffee sales will decrease, to then say that selling those noncoffee products will decrease the shoppes overall profitability is contradicting and messed me up when trying to think about this "logically".
the right answer makes sense after I get the question wrong...oof
my biggest issue here is time, I've been getting better at at figuring out the logic, but not quick enough. does anyone have any tips on getting quicker?
@museum same here :(
@museum more practice
you start to figure out the pattern in the answer choices
I've never done this before so I was excited to test it out; I got it wrong, but I want to come back at the end of the module to see if I can apply what I learned to get right next time!
I came back and it was indeed much easier to figure out!
whenever we get these types of questions I always get them right but I always go over time (usually by 2 mins) is this bad??
literally the only reason i got this right is because i got it wrong like a month ago LOL
@jmcconnell1 lol sameeee