New_Spice180 wrote:So I'm coming to you all for advice because I'm running into problems with Necessary Assumption/Assumption questions. I've been drilling assumption questions for a couple weeks now and I felt like I got the hang of them, until I arrived at the end of my Kaplan Mastery packet...I did around 20 or so of them and I got spanked...
As I stated in another post, I found that long conditional/causal chains definitely trip me up, but it's also the density and complexity of the more difficult Assumption questions... Additionally, I found that I"m a bit frustrated to have been drilling so many questions of this nature and haven't been able to tackle the harder ones.
What are some of you all's tactics to tackling Assumption Questions? Conditional and Casual chains in Assumption questions? What helps you see the gap more easily/ methods for prefacing that aid in finding the gap? Any help is most definitely appreciated.
Moreover, would you all recommend me giving Assumption Questions a break and going over another question type (even though I would really like to have Assumption questions down before moving on)?
Assumption questions are among the hardest LR-question types. At Blueprint, we don't get to them until around 70% into the course, because it helps immensely to have a strong understanding of Flaw and Strengthen/Weaken questions as a foundation.
First off, "Assumption questions" actually refer to two distinct but related question types: Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumption questions. I'm not sure if the prep you've done thus far has done a good job of distinguishing between the two - when I self-studied, my first LR book treated them as the same thing, which I later learned was a huge oversight - so I'll elucidate just to be sure.
An assumption is essentially an unstated premise. All logical arguments need to have premises that are strong and relevant enough to support their conclusion. Assumptions are sometimes described as a "missing link" that completes an argument, but this description really applies more to sufficient than necessary assumptions.
A sufficient assumption is a missing premise that, if added to the argument, would
guarantee the conclusion. It essentially turns an incomplete argument into a foolproof, logical one. For example:
Premise: I am a very relaxed and coolheaded person.
Conclusion: Dogs love me.
Clearly, there's something missing in this argument -
the link between my personality and what dogs love. Essentially, I just analyzed the flaw in the argument, which is lack of the aforementioned link. Remember how I mentioned Flaw questions as being an important foundation for these? That's because Flaw questions train us to identify premises and conclusions, and analyze deficiencies in arguments, which should be your first steps in approaching an assumption question as well.
A sufficient assumption would bridge this gap and make us 100% sure that dogs love me. There are multiple possibilities for an SA here, including:
Dogs love all relaxed people.
Dogs love all coolheaded people.
Dogs love all people who are both coolheaded and relaxed.
Notice how strong these statements are? Remember, a conclusion requires premises of equal or greater strength to support it. The following statements are not strong enough to guarantee the conclusion:
Dogs love most relaxed people.
Dogs love most people.
Since the burden of proof is so high for sufficient assumptions, they tend to be stronger statements. This is isn't always the case, of course, as it really depends on the strength of the conclusion and context of the argument. The key to approaching these is to:
1) identify premises and conclusions
2) analyze what is missing from the premises that would guarantee the conclusion, paying close attention to the strength of the latter
3) anticipate an answer that would bridge that gap
4) search for a compatible answer
If the argument consists of conditional statements, then diagramming can make the process a lot simpler. You mentioned that longer conditional chains trip you up. If you could mention a specific example or two, I'd be happy to break that question down for you.
The way to tell whether an assumption question is Sufficient or Necessary is by the phrasing of the question prompt. It's worth memorizing these so that you don't second-guess yourself on the test.
Sufficient prompts look like these:
The conclusion logically follows if which of the following is assumed?
Which one of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn/would guarantee the conclusion?
Note the phrases "if assumed," "properly drawn," and "follows logically." If the prompt seems to suggest that the argument needs to be completed, it's a Sufficient question.
On to Necessary questions. A necessary assumption is a statement that NEEDS to be true in order for the conclusion to be possible. The word "possible" is key here; a NA doesn't have to complete the argument, its simply something that has to be true for the conclusion to have even the smallest chance of being true. Going back to our dog-love example above, the following would be necessary assumptions:
Premise: I am a very relaxed and coolheaded person.
Conclusion: Dogs love me.
Necessary Assumptions: Dogs sometimes love people.
I am capable of being loved.
At least some coolheaded people are loved.
None of these statements bring us any closer to the conclusion. But if they were false, the conclusion "dogs love me" couldn't possibly be true. To quote the Blueprint textbook: "
If a necessary assumption of an argument is denied or taken away, the argument is rendered invalid." If we were to negate those three statements, they would all invalidate the conclusion, which is how we know for certain that they are necessary assumptions.
Dogs never love people.
I am not capable of being loved.
No coolheaded people are loved.
The approach for Necessary questions is fairly similar to Sufficient questions in that you're still analyzing an argument and looking for any logical jumps. However, you're looking for an assumption that was already made, something that is implicit in the logic of the argument. Once you've narrowed it down to a few answer choices, use the negation test - if the negated form of the answer invalidates the conclusion, it is correct.
That post was a lot longer than I originally intended it to be! I'd be happy to field any follow-up questions.