Top Law Schools

Hey there, could anyone give me an explanation for the difference between sufficient assumptions and necessary assumptions? I seem to be getting these mixed up pretty frequently.

Thanks!

.

I'm working through the LSAT Trainer right now and I just got to the chapter on sufficient/necessary assumptions. I definitely understand conditional logic, I'm just a little confused on applying it to the assumptions.

My understanding of it:

A sufficient assumption asks you to find an answer choice that, if assumed, would be sufficient to bring about the conclusion.. so Answer choice (true) -> conclusion (correct).

A necessary assumption asks you to find an answer choice that needs to be assumed in order for the argument to work.. so Argument (valid) -> answer choice (true).

Is my understanding correct? Thanks

laker wrote:I'm working through the LSAT Trainer right now and I just got to the chapter on sufficient/necessary assumptions. I definitely understand conditional logic, I'm just a little confused on applying it to the assumptions.

My understanding of it:

A sufficient assumption asks you to find an answer choice that, if assumed, would be sufficient to bring about the conclusion.. so Answer choice (true) -> conclusion (correct).

A necessary assumption asks you to find an answer choice that needs to be assumed in order for the argument to work.. so Argument (valid) -> answer choice (true).

Is my understanding correct? Thanks

Think of it as Necessary assumptions giving you half of the arrow that leads to the conclusion being properly drawn, while sufficient assumptions provide you with the entire arrow.

Sufficient completely bridges the gap or hole in the argument allowing the conclusion to be fully drawn. Pretty easy to predict or pre phrase

Necessary conditions are just anything that has to be assumed for the argument to be valid. If you negate the correct answer for one of these questions it will destroy the argument completely. They're hard to predict or pre phrase because there are so many possibilities down to really obvious stuff.

RSolano wrote:Sufficient completely bridges the gap or hole in the argument allowing the conclusion to be fully drawn. Pretty easy to predict or pre phrase

Necessary conditions are just anything that has to be assumed for the argument to be valid. If you negate the correct answer for one of these questions it will destroy the argument completely. They're hard to predict or pre phrase because there are so many possibilities down to really obvious stuff.

I wouldn't say they're hard to predict at all. I find myself predicting the correct answer before I even look at the choices.

mmart207 wrote:

RSolano wrote:Sufficient completely bridges the gap or hole in the argument allowing the conclusion to be fully drawn. Pretty easy to predict or pre phrase

Necessary conditions are just anything that has to be assumed for the argument to be valid. If you negate the correct answer for one of these questions it will destroy the argument completely. They're hard to predict or pre phrase because there are so many possibilities down to really obvious stuff.

I wouldn't say they're hard to predict at all. I find myself predicting the correct answer before I even look at the choices.

True I guess I should say don't go in with a rigid fixed expectation because sometimes a much broader unexpected right answer can get accidentally eliminated that way.