I have a problem with continually mixing up my necessary and sufficient conditions - I think it stems from my urge to think of these sentences linearly - for example :
mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicators.
every bone in my body tells me that "mastering conditional logic" is the necessary condition, as it is a direct result of "memorizing conditional indicators" this can usually be tamed by translating to Lawgic using indicator words, but without the indicator words available, I need to restructure my thought process - does anyone have any tips on how to avoid thinking in these terms?
I am getting confused about the "guarantee" concept. In the earlier lessons, I believe it was stated that "the sufficient concept is strong enough to guarantee the conclusion and the necessary concept, if not true, the argument falls apart". It was also said that sufficiency = subsets and necessity = supersets. How does that work within this lesson? Maybe I need to start this entire conditional logic section over, but when I start to think I understand it, the new comparisons and words trip me up.
Why couldn't it be: if you saw improvements -> mastered logic. I feel like improvements would be sufficient to master logic. Mastering logic would be necessary to see improvements? Why would Mastering logic be sufficient for seeing improvements? aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I think its less about memorizing what necessarily comes AFTER the conditional word, but having a good grasp of referential phrasing to understand what the conditional indicator is for, regardless of order.
Sorry for the dumb question: Just to clarify... this idea of "subject -> predicate" as "sufficient -> necessary" a rule of thumb for EVERTHING including sentences with indicators? Is this a fool proof way of identifying Sufficient vs. Necessary?
"I don't have this one, so I certainly won't get that one." "this one" is Necessary.
"I have this one, and it is it enough (but not for sure the only thing needed) to get that one." "this one" is Sufficient.
I cannot guarantee this will work every time, but it has worked every time so far for me.
I find the two main concepts in the sentence and I ask:
Necessary Question: "Is this one necessary to have that one?" or if the words necessary and sufficient are losing their meaning because we've heard them so much by now: "Will I certainly not get that one if I don't have this one?" If yes, "this one" is your Necessary idea and it goes on the right side of the arrow. Try both concepts for "this one".
Sufficient Question: "Is this one sufficient to have the other?" or "Is this one enough, but not for sure all that is needed, to allow for the other?" If yes, "this one" is your Sufficient idea and it goes on the left side of the arrow. Try both concepts for "this one".
Necessary example:
"Hitting a nail requires a hammer"
Necessary Question: "Is hitting a nail necessary to a hammer?" or "Will I certainly not a hammer if I don't hitting a nail?" No. Switch concepts. "Is a hammer necessary to hitting a nail?" or "Will I certainly not hit the nail if I don't have a hammer?." Yes!
"Hammer" is necessary. Goes on the right
hit a nail -> hammer
Sufficient Example:
"Politicians that love the environment support policies to grow trees."
Necessary Question: "Are politicians that love the environment necessary to support policies to grow trees?" or "Will I certainly not get policies to grow trees if I don't have politicians that love the environment?" NO. Logically we may think so, but it's not necessary (always required).
Sufficient Question: "Is being a politician that loves the environment sufficient to support policies that grow trees?" or "Are politicians that love the environment enough, but not for sure all that is needed to support politics to grow trees." Yes.
"Politicians that love the environment" is sufficient. Goes on the left
politicians that love the environment -> policies to grow trees
because of the language we see that student mastered = saw improvements, emphasizing that if there were no improvements, we can assume they didnt master the logic because if they has mastered, they would see improvements.
How is it that the mastery is the necessary condition? Couldn't it be assumed that if you didnt master it its not necessarily true that you didnt improve? It doesnt say that mastery is the ONLY way to see improvements so it could be assumed that more things could lead to improvement, but IF you master, youre sure to see improvement.
This is actually a great method for assigning symbols when translating. When I translate into Lawgic one of my biggest obstacles is figuring out which symbols to assign to which. But with this method is actually made easier because I just assign the symbols based on the subject of the sentence and the object.
Like in the example: The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace.
The kernel of the sentence is simply "Kingdoms support policies". Everything else is just modifiers.
So when looking at it like this I just assign the symbols as "K" for kingdoms and "P" for policies.
So the translation to Lawgic looks like this: K → P
#help So I've been dragging my teeth through figuring out conditional relationships and as soon as I feel like I'm getting it, I end up somehow at 0 again.
For the plot and success example, I am confused how the relationship works. If someone can check me it would be very much appreciated.
Plot -> success
Being an engaging plot is sufficient for it finding commercial success but it is not guaranteed because it may receive commercial success by something other than being an engaging plot. (maybe the author is super famous which is why it found success)
On the flip side, commercial success is necessary for an engaging plot?? Isn't that quite literally the inverse of the above? When I put it into chatgpt: "in order for a plot to be truly engaging, it must somehow be commercially successful. This would imply that only those plots that end up being commercially successful are engaging — but this is often false."
So, does that mean this is just a severely weak argument? If that's the case, then I don't think these type of arguments should be exemplified at this point in the curriculum. Feels like we should cover weak arguments when we have a firm grasp over this concept because this example made me feel like I didn't really understand the conditions. However, it may turn out that I did, and it was actually the sentence at fault.
Once again, I'm taking everything with a grain of salt. I could very much be wrong but it's frustrating when learning this concept becomes unstable.
I really do not understand the second example on memorizing conditional indicators and mastering logic. Isn't it true that memorizing indicators is sufficient to master logic, but not necessary (you can master logic in other ways).
I don't get the reasoning otherwise... Mastering logic is sufficient for memorizing indicators? It just does not make sense in my brain even if there is the word "required".
1
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.
87 comments
brain mush
I am definitely getting confused in more complicated sufficient and necessary conditions.
Hopefully more practice equals more accuracy.
so does this mean in these basically the subject is the sufficient and the predicate is the necessary?? im lost
I have a problem with continually mixing up my necessary and sufficient conditions - I think it stems from my urge to think of these sentences linearly - for example :
mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicators.
every bone in my body tells me that "mastering conditional logic" is the necessary condition, as it is a direct result of "memorizing conditional indicators" this can usually be tamed by translating to Lawgic using indicator words, but without the indicator words available, I need to restructure my thought process - does anyone have any tips on how to avoid thinking in these terms?
The subject -> predicate was a lightbulb moment. Thank you for explaining it that way!
Would you say a good idea is that the sufficient clause is the main point that is "doing" the work? While necessary receives the work?
What's really helped me is forcing "if, then" to fit in the sentence. Not sure if this is a bad habit or not, but for example:
"The students who mastered logic saw improvements in their PrepTest scores."
What I did for this was intuitively divide up the sentence into the subject and predicate, then fit "If" and "Then" before them, resulting in:
"if you are a student who mastered logic, then you saw improvements to your PrepTest score"
It's really a backwards way of doing essentially the same thing described in this video, but I've found it to be much more intuitive for myself
Manifesting 180
I am getting confused about the "guarantee" concept. In the earlier lessons, I believe it was stated that "the sufficient concept is strong enough to guarantee the conclusion and the necessary concept, if not true, the argument falls apart". It was also said that sufficiency = subsets and necessity = supersets. How does that work within this lesson? Maybe I need to start this entire conditional logic section over, but when I start to think I understand it, the new comparisons and words trip me up.
Why couldn't it be: if you saw improvements -> mastered logic. I feel like improvements would be sufficient to master logic. Mastering logic would be necessary to see improvements? Why would Mastering logic be sufficient for seeing improvements? aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
This is tough, but we're gonna get through it guys!
I think its less about memorizing what necessarily comes AFTER the conditional word, but having a good grasp of referential phrasing to understand what the conditional indicator is for, regardless of order.
the video has different lawgic than the text or am I trippin?
tbh even w/ indicators, you can still get stuff wrong if you read the grammar wrong so it's good to have a conceptual understanding point blank
''True mastery REQUIRES understanding the concepts of sufficiency and necessity.''
Well played 7Sage... well played.
Sorry for the dumb question: Just to clarify... this idea of "subject -> predicate" as "sufficient -> necessary" a rule of thumb for EVERTHING including sentences with indicators? Is this a fool proof way of identifying Sufficient vs. Necessary?
It helps me to think back to the NYC -> USA example.
For guarantee:
Being in nyc GUARANTEES being in the usa.
Being in the usa is GUARANTEED by being in nyc.
For require:
Being in nyc REQUIRES being in the usa.
Being in the usa is REQUIRED to be in nyc.
Here's what I'm doing that works.
TLDR: Find the two concepts and compare.
"I don't have this one, so I certainly won't get that one." "this one" is Necessary.
"I have this one, and it is it enough (but not for sure the only thing needed) to get that one." "this one" is Sufficient.
I cannot guarantee this will work every time, but it has worked every time so far for me.
I find the two main concepts in the sentence and I ask:
Necessary Question: "Is this one necessary to have that one?" or if the words necessary and sufficient are losing their meaning because we've heard them so much by now: "Will I certainly not get that one if I don't have this one?" If yes, "this one" is your Necessary idea and it goes on the right side of the arrow. Try both concepts for "this one".
Sufficient Question: "Is this one sufficient to have the other?" or "Is this one enough, but not for sure all that is needed, to allow for the other?" If yes, "this one" is your Sufficient idea and it goes on the left side of the arrow. Try both concepts for "this one".
Necessary example:
"Hitting a nail requires a hammer"
Necessary Question: "Is hitting a nail necessary to a hammer?" or "Will I certainly not a hammer if I don't hitting a nail?" No. Switch concepts. "Is a hammer necessary to hitting a nail?" or "Will I certainly not hit the nail if I don't have a hammer?." Yes!
"Hammer" is necessary. Goes on the right
hit a nail -> hammer
Sufficient Example:
"Politicians that love the environment support policies to grow trees."
Necessary Question: "Are politicians that love the environment necessary to support policies to grow trees?" or "Will I certainly not get policies to grow trees if I don't have politicians that love the environment?" NO. Logically we may think so, but it's not necessary (always required).
Sufficient Question: "Is being a politician that loves the environment sufficient to support policies that grow trees?" or "Are politicians that love the environment enough, but not for sure all that is needed to support politics to grow trees." Yes.
"Politicians that love the environment" is sufficient. Goes on the left
politicians that love the environment -> policies to grow trees
So, we're supposed to assume that if there's no conditional indicator, that it's an all statement? #help
Is it safe to say that Sufficient -> Necessary is similar to a Cause -> Effect relationship? That is sort of how I'm seeing it in my head.
lmao. mastery → understanding concepts.
I don't understand the example of
improve -> mastery
because of the language we see that student mastered = saw improvements, emphasizing that if there were no improvements, we can assume they didnt master the logic because if they has mastered, they would see improvements.
How is it that the mastery is the necessary condition? Couldn't it be assumed that if you didnt master it its not necessarily true that you didnt improve? It doesnt say that mastery is the ONLY way to see improvements so it could be assumed that more things could lead to improvement, but IF you master, youre sure to see improvement.
This is actually a great method for assigning symbols when translating. When I translate into Lawgic one of my biggest obstacles is figuring out which symbols to assign to which. But with this method is actually made easier because I just assign the symbols based on the subject of the sentence and the object.
Like in the example: The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace.
The kernel of the sentence is simply "Kingdoms support policies". Everything else is just modifiers.
So when looking at it like this I just assign the symbols as "K" for kingdoms and "P" for policies.
So the translation to Lawgic looks like this: K → P
#help So I've been dragging my teeth through figuring out conditional relationships and as soon as I feel like I'm getting it, I end up somehow at 0 again.
For the plot and success example, I am confused how the relationship works. If someone can check me it would be very much appreciated.
Plot -> success
Being an engaging plot is sufficient for it finding commercial success but it is not guaranteed because it may receive commercial success by something other than being an engaging plot. (maybe the author is super famous which is why it found success)
On the flip side, commercial success is necessary for an engaging plot?? Isn't that quite literally the inverse of the above? When I put it into chatgpt: "in order for a plot to be truly engaging, it must somehow be commercially successful. This would imply that only those plots that end up being commercially successful are engaging — but this is often false."
So, does that mean this is just a severely weak argument? If that's the case, then I don't think these type of arguments should be exemplified at this point in the curriculum. Feels like we should cover weak arguments when we have a firm grasp over this concept because this example made me feel like I didn't really understand the conditions. However, it may turn out that I did, and it was actually the sentence at fault.
Once again, I'm taking everything with a grain of salt. I could very much be wrong but it's frustrating when learning this concept becomes unstable.
I really do not understand the second example on memorizing conditional indicators and mastering logic. Isn't it true that memorizing indicators is sufficient to master logic, but not necessary (you can master logic in other ways).
I don't get the reasoning otherwise... Mastering logic is sufficient for memorizing indicators? It just does not make sense in my brain even if there is the word "required".