Another good way to look at it is what the answer does.
Sufficient Assumptions are strong answers that make the conclusion stronger. They are there to beef up the logic and make it more likely to be true.
Necessary assumptions on the other hand are not trying to prove or strengthen anything. Necessary assumptions are proved by the information already in the stimulus. They are almost always weaker than SA because their purpose is not to prove the conclusion correct but to be required by the logic of the Existing facts. They are often unassuming almost "Duh, obviously" type answers. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that an NA answer is too weak to be right. It is not supposed to be powerful, but provable.
Imagine watching First Take where Necessary Assumptions are used as argument points
Stephen A. Smith vs. Skip Bayless (Forget Max Kellerman, not the same show)
Who is the G.O.A.T - Michael Jordan or Lebron James?
Skip: "MJ is the greatest, no question. He has six rings, never lost in the Finals, 5 time MVP, won DPOY, and was virtually unguardable!!"
Stephen A: "That stance is asinine, asiten, asieleven!!! Lebron is the G.O.A.T.! He has played basketball! He exists! He has feet! His molecular composition includes hydrogen!"
Also with how often James Harden travels during his iconic double step-back shot I would argue that knowing how to dribble is not necessary for being a great basketball player lmao
ill consider it as a race. The sufficient assumption can take the argument to the finish line. The necessary assumption is enough to just make it a contender. However, with out the necessary assumption, it'll no longer be a contender.
I like this analogy! but I feel like it's missing a key element when specifically talking about LSAT arguments. Like in JY's example, there is a huge HUGE "leap" or "hole" or "missing element" in the argument. (I mean, it went from I play basketball to I am the best baller in the world). So--in my opinion which I will try to justify--the S.A. would not simply be glitter to that argument. It would be the last needed missing card of that card tower that would pretty much complete the argument/card tower. A S.A. that I won 5 NBA Championships, been selected as an all-star 17 times, and voted by all NBA coaches as one of the best shooting guards wouldn't be glitter to the object, it would almost complete and guarantee the conclusion of the argument.
I would say it more like:
SA is a card on top of the card tower.
NA are the cards at the bottom of the tower.
For SA, you don't necessarily(hah!) need the cards on top of the tower for it to be built, but it would make it more complete and stronger(sort of).
For NA, you need the cards at the bottom. You need to be alive to be the best basketball player. Because without the cards at the bottom, the tower would fall. If you were to omit/negate/take out a card--the whole thing would fall.
If you take out the glue that holds the glitter to the object, then shucks no glitter on the object. But the object would still stand. The problem is if you were to take the NA out of the argument, it would completely fall and no longer be an object.
I apologize for the long reply...I just kept rolling.
383 comments
Necessary Condition: required for a result but usually not enough for a valid argument
Sufficient Condition: guarantees the result but isn't needed
Example:
$1000 sufficient to buy ChickfilA but not necessary
$1 necessary to buy ChickfilA but not sufficient
This example made me hungry
RIP Kobe
I think this video is among the best lessons I've ever had in my life.
+1
+1
+1
Amazing.
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
@mrlsat180809 +1
+1
Rest in Peace Kobe & Gigi <3
Rip Kobe
🙏🏾
SA: Luxury
NA: Basic
This should be SOOOO much earlier in the curriculum!
Facts.
It really should
Agree. Did not truly understand this until today.
This is how I like to think of Necessary Assumption:
A necessary assumption might not help your argument that much, but without this assumption your argument falls apart.
RIP kobe bryant
Coming from another course to 7sage, this simple explanation would have been so helpful long ago.
KOBE!! Never thought I’d get emotional from LSAT lesson not named logic games
Another good way to look at it is what the answer does.
Sufficient Assumptions are strong answers that make the conclusion stronger. They are there to beef up the logic and make it more likely to be true.
Necessary assumptions on the other hand are not trying to prove or strengthen anything. Necessary assumptions are proved by the information already in the stimulus. They are almost always weaker than SA because their purpose is not to prove the conclusion correct but to be required by the logic of the Existing facts. They are often unassuming almost "Duh, obviously" type answers. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that an NA answer is too weak to be right. It is not supposed to be powerful, but provable.
RIP Kobe
god this lesson reaffirmed how happy I am to have spent the $179 on the starter pack. screw you ex-test company
Kaplan?
Imagine watching First Take where Necessary Assumptions are used as argument points
Stephen A. Smith vs. Skip Bayless (Forget Max Kellerman, not the same show)
Who is the G.O.A.T - Michael Jordan or Lebron James?
Skip: "MJ is the greatest, no question. He has six rings, never lost in the Finals, 5 time MVP, won DPOY, and was virtually unguardable!!"
Stephen A: "That stance is asinine, asiten, asieleven!!! Lebron is the G.O.A.T.! He has played basketball! He exists! He has feet! His molecular composition includes hydrogen!"
Dead air for several minutes
I love that show! Why do they all insist on using their entire names when arguing though?
Love this.
This is amazing!!!!
lol that's perfect!
Lebron fans in shambles
Jaylen Brown is an exception to the knowing how to dribble
watching this now that Jaylen Brown is on the precipice of winning Finals MVP LOL
whomp whomp
I'm a beast.
Rest in Peace Mamba and Mambacita :(
Also with how often James Harden travels during his iconic double step-back shot I would argue that knowing how to dribble is not necessary for being a great basketball player lmao
I was thinking about Shaq posted in the paint lolz
Glad to see someone with great taste lol James Harden is the travel king
ill consider it as a race. The sufficient assumption can take the argument to the finish line. The necessary assumption is enough to just make it a contender. However, with out the necessary assumption, it'll no longer be a contender.
Love this
One thing that helped me to distinguish these questions:
1. Sufficient Assumption- ask myself, "Is it enough to know X?"
2. Necessary Assumption- ask myself, "Do I need to know X?"
Love this!
SA is adding glitter to an object
NA is the glue that holds the glitter together on the object
I like this analogy! but I feel like it's missing a key element when specifically talking about LSAT arguments. Like in JY's example, there is a huge HUGE "leap" or "hole" or "missing element" in the argument. (I mean, it went from I play basketball to I am the best baller in the world). So--in my opinion which I will try to justify--the S.A. would not simply be glitter to that argument. It would be the last needed missing card of that card tower that would pretty much complete the argument/card tower. A S.A. that I won 5 NBA Championships, been selected as an all-star 17 times, and voted by all NBA coaches as one of the best shooting guards wouldn't be glitter to the object, it would almost complete and guarantee the conclusion of the argument.
I would say it more like:
SA is a card on top of the card tower.
NA are the cards at the bottom of the tower.
For SA, you don't necessarily(hah!) need the cards on top of the tower for it to be built, but it would make it more complete and stronger(sort of).
For NA, you need the cards at the bottom. You need to be alive to be the best basketball player. Because without the cards at the bottom, the tower would fall. If you were to omit/negate/take out a card--the whole thing would fall.
If you take out the glue that holds the glitter to the object, then shucks no glitter on the object. But the object would still stand. The problem is if you were to take the NA out of the argument, it would completely fall and no longer be an object.
I apologize for the long reply...I just kept rolling.
Long but very good explanation. Like a foundation of a house! :)
This analogy could also be compared to a game of Jenga, where NA is the blocks at the bottom, and SA is the blocks at the top!
kobe bryant :(
RIP kobe
I need 7sage to do well on Lsat. That is Necessary.
Lmao right like without it my LSAT prep falls apart, but unfortunately it is not sufficient. Lots of other stuff is necessary to do well on the LSAT