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.
Ugh I chose B after thinking for like 10 mins and then right as I submitted it got flagged and then it clicked for me and i got the blind review correct instantly.
Moreover, the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability only if its coffee sales do not decrease
If this is true, why isn't it true that the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability by selling noncoffee products AND ensuring their coffee sales do not decrease.
Is there something that stops both these things from being true at the same time?
How do we know how far of an assumption not to make. Some of the answer choices seem like they would follow logically for example if B was put into the paragraph it seems like it would follow logically can you explain why this is wrong and how to avoid this in the future?
After reading the explanation, I am a little confused and will go and watch the video. My first thought confusing me though, is that what if coffee is a highly elastic good? What if the coffee shop increases the price for the coffee at the same rate as the increase in price of beans, keeping the margin the exact same. If coffee is a highly elastic good, that means that with changes in price, demand and consumption doesn't change much. So what if that margin stays the same and people don't actually start buying less coffee? That would mean that profit would stay around the same, or at least it COULD. I know we're supposed to take the statement of "or its coffee sales will decrease" as true, but why do we assume that? It may not be the case and seems to open it up to more incorrect assumptions. I mean imagine your favorite coffee shop increased it's coffee prices by 75 cents to make up for higher priced beans, would you really buy less? Maybe, but maybe not.
Basically if the answer says anything for sure, it's probably wrong because based on this question, logically, we don't know all of the possibilities. I think.
This helped me realize that I have been having with confusing sufficient condition and necessary conditions. Explaining that you can't go "backwards" against an arrow now makes sense why I selected the incorrect answer and further why C is the correct answer.
I'm still lost on when it's OK to make assumptions. For example; (in my mind) just because there is an increase in coffee sales doesn't mean there's an increase in overall profit. What If there's a theft problem at the store or any other reason that could cause overall profit to go down despite an increase in coffee sales. Why is it that (seemingly at random) we are able to make some assumptions and it's ok, but other times we can't make the assumption?
The way I ruled out answer choice E was by my understanding that the "price paid by Coffee Shop for coffee beans will continue to increase" and "OR Coffee Shops sales will increase" cannot exist together because based on the fact-sets, the "OR" cannot tie these two clauses together as "price paid by Coffee Shop for coffee beans will continue to increase" comes before "OR Coffee Shops sales will increase". Is this a right way to understand this? Or am I screwing myself over for future questions by seeing it this way?
0
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!
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.
81 comments
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.
I'm not taking LSAT anymore
Ugh I chose B after thinking for like 10 mins and then right as I submitted it got flagged and then it clicked for me and i got the blind review correct instantly.
I got B I didn't consider the fact that it doesn't go both ways
Gettingggg something right for once feels nice
I hate the way the LSAT writers use double negatives in their writing, it always manages to trip me up!
YAY!! got it right and undertime, the foundations module so far has changed the way i think about breaking down the questions.
I'm a little confused on this:
If this is true, why isn't it true that the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability by selling noncoffee products AND ensuring their coffee sales do not decrease.
Is there something that stops both these things from being true at the same time?
How do we know how far of an assumption not to make. Some of the answer choices seem like they would follow logically for example if B was put into the paragraph it seems like it would follow logically can you explain why this is wrong and how to avoid this in the future?
After reading the explanation, I am a little confused and will go and watch the video. My first thought confusing me though, is that what if coffee is a highly elastic good? What if the coffee shop increases the price for the coffee at the same rate as the increase in price of beans, keeping the margin the exact same. If coffee is a highly elastic good, that means that with changes in price, demand and consumption doesn't change much. So what if that margin stays the same and people don't actually start buying less coffee? That would mean that profit would stay around the same, or at least it COULD. I know we're supposed to take the statement of "or its coffee sales will decrease" as true, but why do we assume that? It may not be the case and seems to open it up to more incorrect assumptions. I mean imagine your favorite coffee shop increased it's coffee prices by 75 cents to make up for higher priced beans, would you really buy less? Maybe, but maybe not.
Basically if the answer says anything for sure, it's probably wrong because based on this question, logically, we don't know all of the possibilities. I think.
what the helly
Bro fck your coffee and your beans lmao
I understand. I made a arrow chart before watching the video during the blind review and that really helped!
This helped me realize that I have been having with confusing sufficient condition and necessary conditions. Explaining that you can't go "backwards" against an arrow now makes sense why I selected the incorrect answer and further why C is the correct answer.
ngl this question had me bamboozled
#Help
I'm still lost on when it's OK to make assumptions. For example; (in my mind) just because there is an increase in coffee sales doesn't mean there's an increase in overall profit. What If there's a theft problem at the store or any other reason that could cause overall profit to go down despite an increase in coffee sales. Why is it that (seemingly at random) we are able to make some assumptions and it's ok, but other times we can't make the assumption?
The way I ruled out answer choice E was by my understanding that the "price paid by Coffee Shop for coffee beans will continue to increase" and "OR Coffee Shops sales will increase" cannot exist together because based on the fact-sets, the "OR" cannot tie these two clauses together as "price paid by Coffee Shop for coffee beans will continue to increase" comes before "OR Coffee Shops sales will increase". Is this a right way to understand this? Or am I screwing myself over for future questions by seeing it this way?