- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hi guys! I'm prepping for the November LSAT, and have been consistently testing at -1/sometimes -2 on LR. I ALWAYS catch my error(s) on BR, but I never flag the questions I get wrong as I'm taking them. I'm trying to close the BR gap, but am struggling since I can never tell when I get questions wrong in the first place!
Anyone else worked through this problem?
After a very frustrated BR, this is what helped me understand how to answer this Q. Exclusively looking at "it is a given" to determine that this is the premise seems a little iffy to me, since what distinguishes premises from conclusions is not the indicator, but the underlying structure of the argument. I figured, it shouldn't be the ONLY way to understand this Q. I THINK this can be understood in terms of conditional logic.
Sentence 1 says:
Intriguing -> inspire curiosity
Sentence 2 says:
expansion (which is broadening abilities and extending intellectual reach) -> inspire curiosity
Sentence 3 says:
expansion -> intriguing
Sentence 2 makes sense as a conclusion, because you can chain the conditionals in 1 and 3...
expansion -> intriguing -> inspire curiosity
...to get to
expansion -> inspire curiosity
Which is answer (B).
I'm a little confused on this:
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?
This was also how I got to the answer quickly!