@Karl! Not really. I knew that one half was the premise and the other half was the conclusion. I was just like, "How are they tying this together?"

I guess it was a wrong answer in more than one way. It's just simply not a valid argument at all, so it can't even be close to the right answer as the wrong answer in a parallel or analogy type question.

My take on each option

A) we know that if it's velvety, it was considered over-whipped. However, we don't know if it's over-whipped if it's necessarily going to be velvety. Maybe it could be too runny. Basically, we know that if A then B, but that does not imply if B then A.

B) we do know that this is true. It told us that it maybe possibly could be a little bit helpful, but it explicitly tells us it cannot fully compensate for the poor intake, which is what causes the blender to be ineffective. Since it can't fix the air intake issue that causes the ineffectiveness, using that attachment alone does not suffice to effectively whip the cream.

C) we don't know if it always produces a better result or fluffier cream. We know that it can, but we're never told that it definitely will.

D) we don't know this to be true at all. You could make a couple of wild assumptions and maybe get here, but you definitely shouldn't be doing that. That definitely means it's not the answer to a must be true question.

E) the stimulus never tells us anything regarding how common it is to use blenders to whip cream.

@LaneyWilliams Recently ran into the same issue and basically I think the answer is to first rely on intuition. If something gets too complex or "in the weeds", see if you can simplify the english and keep track of everything intuitively by doing that first. You can even use these translation rules to do the simplification. But if even after simplifying and trying to parse intuitively, you can't see whats going on, its time to go to lawgic, which will hopefully be quick now that you have simplified. Lawgic can also help verify if you have extra time I guess. But if you try to convert everything into Lawgic, you'll waste time on questions you could have answered more quickly with intuition.

@Karl!

Yeah this was one of the wrong answers on the question, but I was unable to parse it easily, which led to me not being able to rule it out easily. Trying to get it to be second nature to parse and rule out and move on. Went to sleep trying to diagram in my head lol This helps a bit

@Zenaida-Macroura Awesome TY!

@Karl! Yeah this is much faster and I am mainly interested in just being faster. You are right that the tricky bit for me is that last sentence. It makes me go "whoa let me diagram this", but I think in reality I just need to think "is there a simplified way of phrasing this", ie "if sales drop, profits drop", which unlocks the whole A -> B | C, and both B & C -> D so A -> D much easier without explicitly diagramming it.

Thank you for the insight!

Amazing! What has your timeline looked like? How long did it take you to go from 148 → 160s → 170?

@SaniqueRowe Bunch of other cool stuff it could show like "You took :14 longer than average test takers with your target score", But not sure if that data is available.

@Kevin_Lin Yeah kinda just practicing converting to lawgic on things. I supposed in a timed situation you can read "it would be absurd to" as "we will not" almost, because we don't do things that are absurd. So here "Since it would be absurd to appoint anyone other than Wong as arbitrator" is just saying "We will appoint Wong, because it would be absurd not to". So

W → P

W

-----

P

Took me a bit but figured out how to type ↑ ↓ ← →, so thanks for that.

I like the "immediately compress as you go"

Given:

BP↑ → SP↑ -> NCP or CS↓

NCP → OP↓

/OP↓ → /CS↓

-------------------

Then:

CS↓ → OP↓, so NCP or CS↓ == OP↓

BP↑ → SP↑ → OP↓

BP↑ → OP↓: Answer C

I'll get faster. This helped, TY

@CaseySteffen whenever == every time

@VanessaMancuso23 go back a couple lessons. Its in the sufficient list.

And try it out for yourself. Try to form "The only oral myths that have survived are the ones that were eventually written down." in such a way that "only" comes before "written down" instead of "survived". You won't be able to use "the only", you'll have to use "only" by itself. ie, "Only the myths that were written down are the ones that survived".

Its kinda an anecdotal exercise to prove to yourself there is more of a significant difference between "the only" and "only" than first meets the eye!

"the only" marks sufficiency and "only" marks necessity.

Just like "if" marks sufficiency and "only if" marks necessity!

Curious how everyone would do this. Try telling me before reading all this, or even just skip reading what I did, I really am curious purely what shorthand everyone uses for conversions.

Ok I just started learning about lawgic and came back to this question. I need some help.

I'm convinced mapping to lowgic is the fastest way to do this in the long run. But currently, I'm really slow at it. I just spend 5:30 on this question!

My problem is reading and mapping to the same thing deterministically. For this question I accidentally mapped like this:

Turned "price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase" into "GC" for "Greater Cost", and "the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices" into "GP" for "Greater Price". So, GC -> GP. So far so good.

Then "either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease" into "NC | DS" for "Non Coffee OR Decreased Sale". So now I have GP -> NC | DS.

Then I turned "decrease the Coffee Shoppe's overall profitability" into "DP" for "Decreased Profitability". So now NC -> DP

Then I turned "can avoid a decrease in overall profitability" into "/DOP" for "NOT Decreased Overall Profitability" and "coffee sales do not decrease" into "/DCS" for "NOT Decreased Coffee Sales". Notice this is where I messed up. I mapped things I had already defined into new acronyms. I had:

GC -> GP

GP -> NC | DS

NC -> DP

/DOP -> /DCS

But I should have had:

GC -> GP

GP -> NC | DS

NC -> DP

/DP -> /DS

Now its obvious that

DS -> DP, and since also NC -> DP, then now NC | DS can just be set to DP, giving:

GC -> GP

GP -> DP

Therefore GC -> DP, and back to english is "If cost of beans increase, Shoppe will have decreased profits", which is exactly what C says, so it took me 3 seconds to find that. But getting to GC -> DP was the key.

...So how do I make that faster, and how do I avoid mistakes like mapping the same thing to two different lawgic acronyms? That is what took all my time to realize I had done that, which is why nothing was coming out of the original mappings I had. Maybe there is better shorthand to use that would help me be more clear, but also short enough to be fast still?

I will try again now after writing all this:

Mapping First:

Bean price increases -> Shoppe increases prices

Shoppe increases prices -> Sells NCP | CSD

Sells NCP -> DOP

/DOP -> /CSD

------------------------

Now Transformation:

CSD -> DOP

Sells NCP | CSD -> DOP

Shoppe increases prices -> DOP

Bean price increases -> DOP

"If bean prices increase, then Coffee Shoppe will have a Decrease in Overall Profitibility", answer C.

...Ok that was a bit faster, but typing was slow, probably faster on paper. Still trying to find that balance of clarity and brevity. If a person could just instantly map this all to something like

BPI -> SIP

SIP -> NCP | CSD

NCP -> DOP

/DOP -> /CSD

-------------------------

CSD -> DOP

NCP | CSD -> DOP

-------------------------

BPI -> SIP -> DOP

BPI -> DOP

-------------------------

"if Bean Price Increases, then Decrease in Overall Profitability", answer C.

That would be soooo fast. That is my goal. Acronyms are so much faster to read and move around in lawgic, but how important is retaining the context of each in your voice in your head? Curious what everyone would do and if you actually read everything I did, thank you and I would love to hear what I can do to improve so I can do this without even thinking.

Didn't see this and thought I was being scammed! lol Very cool TY guys!

@Ilovethistest what is the conclusion if you don’t mind? It seems more just a statement of what happened, with no point.

@GGG It’s a Always Sunny reference lol just a joke

@GGG I don’t think you’re getting it. The implication is things might now go so well for them if they say no.

@Relay It surprises me that you would be less worried as a software engineer, as you are more likely to have first hand experience of the productivity increase of AI tools in the workplace, enabling fewer people to do the same amount of, if not more, work. That is my primary concern is a a pressure from one side with increasing admission applications to law schools and pressure from a lower hiring demands in the workforce in the coming years due to the ability for the existing workforce to do more simply by using AI instead of hiring as much help as they would otherwise. You are a software engineer currently? Are you looking to go to law school? If so, what made you want to change careers? If not, are you in law school or practicing yet? If that’s the case, have you seen law students or lawyers using AI tools yet?

Depends, need some info on where you are starting. If you are getting estimated and PT scores of like 130, it will be much harder than if your natural score is 150+. Its not necessarily time that matters. Some people take a year and can't break 150, some people are getting that out of the gate.

@CorinaTan It feels like what you are describing for the RC is just a "relaxed, it is what it is" mood when reading it. I noticed when I just relax and try to read the stim and learn what its trying to tell me and pretend there is no other motive (like getting some dumb question right!), I do much better after I'm done reading and start to go through the questions.

Some guys score better with the ladies when out on a boat. Whats the implication???