I got this right but I got confused in the explanation video and diagram, specifically as you're explaining answer B. Why would we assume there are other contributing factors to the decrease in profitability other than selling non coffee products OR coffee sales decrease if I go strictly by the info I am being given in the statement?
@JoselineMendizabal I think it has something to do with overlooked possibilities but I'm not 100% sure. For answer B, it's worded in a very specific way that is saying that those two options are the only way the coffee shoppe's overall profitability will decrease and we are not supposed to make that assumption without being directly told so.
the one thing that i got tripped up on is--is it not possible for the coffee shoppe to start selling non-coffee products and also avoid a decrease in coffee sales? maybe overthinking, but couldn't this avoid a decrease in overall profitability as well?
I've come to realize that the classic LSAT trap really is dressing up simple, everyday logic in dense conditional statements, but answer can so often very well be the simplest one.
The argument I think relies on a "chain reaction" of events:
Bean prices go up: The shop must raise prices to account.
Prices go up: Either sales drop OR they have to start selling non-coffee products.
Sales drop: Profitability falls.
Selling non-coffee products: Profitability also falls.
Because both paths (that is, dropping sales or switching to non-coffee product) lead to less profit, the end result is inevitable. If bean prices continue to increase, profitability will always decrease
If you get it wrong review and do your best to understand why, dont get strung up over it. It is foundations. Put the effort to understand and youll eventually get it. Ps I got it wrong on both the intial answer and blind review, I chose B initially, in blind review i eliminated to A an C and then chose A. Both A and B are attractive trap answers because they are general but they are not the MOST correct answer supported by the passage. Additionally you have not review the lessons break down for sufficient and necessity to have a grasp, this was considered a harder question. Yet in grammar section I got questions that were considered extremely hard correct and ones that were easy wrong. Read clearly, dont worry about time, worry about grasping, remember the LSAT grades you on how many you get correct not incorrect, hope this gives hope to those who are still struggling with grasping concepts, dont give up.
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 :/
162 comments
I got this right but I got confused in the explanation video and diagram, specifically as you're explaining answer B. Why would we assume there are other contributing factors to the decrease in profitability other than selling non coffee products OR coffee sales decrease if I go strictly by the info I am being given in the statement?
@JoselineMendizabal I think it has something to do with overlooked possibilities but I'm not 100% sure. For answer B, it's worded in a very specific way that is saying that those two options are the only way the coffee shoppe's overall profitability will decrease and we are not supposed to make that assumption without being directly told so.
I answered D and looking at the video if only I read the text for another second literally just skimming too fast I feel like.
Ah, the good ol' coffee shop question. I got it right, but I was over time.
the grammar is cooking me gotta be better
the one thing that i got tripped up on is--is it not possible for the coffee shoppe to start selling non-coffee products and also avoid a decrease in coffee sales? maybe overthinking, but couldn't this avoid a decrease in overall profitability as well?
I've come to realize that the classic LSAT trap really is dressing up simple, everyday logic in dense conditional statements, but answer can so often very well be the simplest one.
The argument I think relies on a "chain reaction" of events:
Bean prices go up: The shop must raise prices to account.
Prices go up: Either sales drop OR they have to start selling non-coffee products.
Sales drop: Profitability falls.
Selling non-coffee products: Profitability also falls.
Because both paths (that is, dropping sales or switching to non-coffee product) lead to less profit, the end result is inevitable. If bean prices continue to increase, profitability will always decrease
Is it recommended to write out the notes? Visuals do help, but I feel like it can take a lot of time.
A few things that helped me get it right were…
“Translating” each sentence and understanding how it interacted with the previous sentence.
Reminding myself that there is a difference between an absolute statement and a relative statement.
Briefly reading the question and answer choices prior to reading the stimulus.
Hope these help.
so i got it right... it just took me 10 extra minutes lol
If you get it wrong review and do your best to understand why, dont get strung up over it. It is foundations. Put the effort to understand and youll eventually get it. Ps I got it wrong on both the intial answer and blind review, I chose B initially, in blind review i eliminated to A an C and then chose A. Both A and B are attractive trap answers because they are general but they are not the MOST correct answer supported by the passage. Additionally you have not review the lessons break down for sufficient and necessity to have a grasp, this was considered a harder question. Yet in grammar section I got questions that were considered extremely hard correct and ones that were easy wrong. Read clearly, dont worry about time, worry about grasping, remember the LSAT grades you on how many you get correct not incorrect, hope this gives hope to those who are still struggling with grasping concepts, dont give up.
I got it right the first time in 1:47!!!! I tried not to over think it and that strategy helped the most!
@And.m3d sameeeee!
@And.m3d omg exact same time to the second to get it right!
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