#feedback this takes way longer than 3 minutes to read and digest. I know it's not a huge deal, but I think it's important to provide accurate time predictions for sections. I've noticed this is a common theme for most reading lessons, that the time it takes to complete is underestimated.
The Pizza Rat is correct. I was zoning out trying to break down every rich detail in this page. It is filled with amazing knowledge but it took me a fat minute to finish it all.
In NA questions, we are being asked to identify how the author got to this point, with the argument as is. Ask yourself, "What is absolutely necessary to have gotten to this point?"
In SA questions, we are being asked to take the argument to the next level by adding to it something that would make it logically valid. Ask yourself, "What can we add to this to make it better?" so to speak
I’m in a fantasy football league with friends. Quick refresher: you draft real players, set a lineup, and your team scores based on how those players do in real games.
This week Friend 1 was playing Friend 2. The score was 120 to 135. Friend 1 was down 15, and here is the kicker: he left his quarterback slot empty. Friend 2’s whole roster had already played, so 135 was his final score.
I told Friend 1, “If you want any chance to win, you need to start a QB.” Friend 2 jumped in and said, “Even if he adds a QB, that does not mean he will get 16 or more points.” I said, “Right, it is not a guaranteed win. But without a QB, there is zero chance.” That is the point. It is a necessary condition. A QB does not ensure victory, but no QB ensures defeat.
Shoutout to 7Sage. LSAT necessary assumptions can even help you talk trash with logic.
@JeromedoesLSATPREP I feel like this is the right space to drop a Dan Marino comment. Ok, not directly applicable but it relates to the video(-ish).Dude was a legend, one of the greats, never won a Superbowl. Not necessary. Swim hard, pard!
The not-stated-fact here that makes this type of question more scary is that Necessary Assumption questions, according to the cheat sheet given to us, are 53% more numerous than the Sufficient Assumption questions :(
Where are the example questions on this intro page? This has been big for me in previous lessons. I noticed there weren't any in the last section either.
Wait, can someone explain why the phrase "the amount of aesthetic pleasure a diamond provides is relevant to the value it commands" doesn't justify the conclusion?
I feel like it goes hand-in-hand with the premise and conclusion? The conclusion was that they should be deemed of equal value, and if they both give the same amount of aesthetic pleasure, why would the necessary assumption not justify the conclusion?
@nycxchi aesthetic value may be "relevant to the value it commands"
but it does not tell you enough to say "both should be deemed of equal value"
aesthetic value could, for example be relevant to a very small degree, but there could be some much more important factor to the value a diamond command commands.
it leaves the door open for a possibility such as "the diamond looks good, sure, and that matters a little bit, but the value of knowing a diamond is real matters much more"
in that world, "both should be deemed of equal value" would be false
On the diamond question: another necessary assumption is that diamonds have any value at all. It is necessary for a diamond to have any kind of value in order for its value to be derived from aesthetic pleasure, yet it having any value at all is not sufficient for that argument we're referencing to be true. I think if we were to deny this necessary assumption, it would hurt the diamond-value argument even more than the example given here.
#feedback Why are there no examples for the must be true and negation tests? I would think that's handy information to have as part of a lesson before moving onto the questions.
so basically, the NA is the bare minimum the argument needs in order to have a chance of being logical while SA sets the bar very high making the argument logically valid
Where can I review "types of reasoning"? E.g. rule-application reasoning, causal reasoning, conditional reasoning, cost-benefit analysis, and reasoning by analogy.
I don't think there's a specific lesson, but during certain question types, he would go over and practice these reasonings. For example, rule-application is basically all of the PSA lessons and some of the SA questions; causal reasoning, cost-benefit, reasoning by analysis were seen a lot in WSE questions.
However, there was overlap. There were some questions in PSA that, in conjunction with the rule-application reasoning, used cost-benefit analysis or reasoning by analogy. I would go back to these specific lessons.
I think it would be helpful to include a summary of each reasoning type along with key strategies/tips at some point in the curriculum. It would also be great if we could filter LR Qs that specifically use a given type of reasoning (if this is not possible already).
Although more than one type can be used in a given argument, I think it could still be beneficial! #feedback
@isabellagirjikian Necessary Assumption is essentially a fact that were it untrue, no argument could be made.
Take the assumption given in the lesson "the amount of aesthetic pleasure a diamond provides is relevant to the value it commands". If this wasn't true, the entire argument falls apart. If aesthetic pleasure isn't relevant, then why would the jewels be valued the same at all and what cause would we have to think so? It just crumbles.
@Imtryingggggg I usually just read the text and if I am still confused or lost I will also watch the video. I am just preparing myself for future lawyer and law school activities which is a lot of reading. Better to start now haha
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge You misunderstand. He is saying winning 5 MVPS isn't necessary for being one the best players of all time. You could have 4, 3, 2, 10 MVP awards. Who cares if its 5. Who cares if its any. It's not necessary.
@SimonArmendariz I didnt say anything about being one of the best of all time. You misunderstand what I wrote. I said it's safe to assume someone knows how to dribble a basketball if they've won 5 mvps.
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge Ah. I mean that's true that that is a reasonable assumption, but those conditions were never put together like that in the previous lesson's example.
Just to confirm.... is this rule sufficient and necessary? "Rule: the value of a diamond should derive solely from the aesthetic pleasure it provides."
Or, in the example, is it only the rule "the amount of aesthetic pleasure that a diamond provides is relevant to the value that it commands" that is necessary (but not sufficient)?
@e.wimoine To be sufficient it has to strengthen the conclusion to a degree that it is believable and possibly valid. To be necessary it just has to be grounds for which something can be true.
76 comments
Sometimes this guy has a weird way of explaining things
#feedback this takes way longer than 3 minutes to read and digest. I know it's not a huge deal, but I think it's important to provide accurate time predictions for sections. I've noticed this is a common theme for most reading lessons, that the time it takes to complete is underestimated.
never thought i'd see such wisdom from Charles Entertainment Cheese
The Pizza Rat is correct. I was zoning out trying to break down every rich detail in this page. It is filled with amazing knowledge but it took me a fat minute to finish it all.
Took me 20 minutes MR. CHEESE
Come on down the the neighborhood child casino owned by your favorite rat!
same I thought it was just my ADHD
FR, I felt like I was reading Heidegger or some philosophical text. Whoever wrote the Mr. Fat Cat example in the comments is the GOAT
me too
I think the diamond example is a little confusing. An additional example would help a lot in better understanding this lesson.
I see the difference like this:
In NA questions, we are being asked to identify how the author got to this point, with the argument as is. Ask yourself, "What is absolutely necessary to have gotten to this point?"
In SA questions, we are being asked to take the argument to the next level by adding to it something that would make it logically valid. Ask yourself, "What can we add to this to make it better?" so to speak
I’m in a fantasy football league with friends. Quick refresher: you draft real players, set a lineup, and your team scores based on how those players do in real games.
This week Friend 1 was playing Friend 2. The score was 120 to 135. Friend 1 was down 15, and here is the kicker: he left his quarterback slot empty. Friend 2’s whole roster had already played, so 135 was his final score.
I told Friend 1, “If you want any chance to win, you need to start a QB.” Friend 2 jumped in and said, “Even if he adds a QB, that does not mean he will get 16 or more points.” I said, “Right, it is not a guaranteed win. But without a QB, there is zero chance.” That is the point. It is a necessary condition. A QB does not ensure victory, but no QB ensures defeat.
Shoutout to 7Sage. LSAT necessary assumptions can even help you talk trash with logic.
@JeromedoesLSATPREP I feel like this is the right space to drop a Dan Marino comment. Ok, not directly applicable but it relates to the video(-ish).Dude was a legend, one of the greats, never won a Superbowl. Not necessary. Swim hard, pard!
I can already tell this next unit is going to give me a lot of grief T>T
Please write a "Theory and Approach" lesson like this one, but for Sufficient Assumption 🥹
Khan has a really good description for SA to look at.
This was a good lesson.
Hell yeah it was. Very clear and a bare minimum of fluff, plus working tactics.
I'm gonna need to think of the phrasing as "strictly necessary"
#feedback I miss the videos!
YAYYY, it's a video!!!!!
@MnM its been so long
girl, u lost me at that diamond example. imma just keep it pushing and hope i get what you were saying
The not-stated-fact here that makes this type of question more scary is that Necessary Assumption questions, according to the cheat sheet given to us, are 53% more numerous than the Sufficient Assumption questions :(
Where are the example questions on this intro page? This has been big for me in previous lessons. I noticed there weren't any in the last section either.
Wait, can someone explain why the phrase "the amount of aesthetic pleasure a diamond provides is relevant to the value it commands" doesn't justify the conclusion?
I feel like it goes hand-in-hand with the premise and conclusion? The conclusion was that they should be deemed of equal value, and if they both give the same amount of aesthetic pleasure, why would the necessary assumption not justify the conclusion?
@nycxchi aesthetic value may be "relevant to the value it commands"
but it does not tell you enough to say "both should be deemed of equal value"
aesthetic value could, for example be relevant to a very small degree, but there could be some much more important factor to the value a diamond command commands.
it leaves the door open for a possibility such as "the diamond looks good, sure, and that matters a little bit, but the value of knowing a diamond is real matters much more"
in that world, "both should be deemed of equal value" would be false
On the diamond question: another necessary assumption is that diamonds have any value at all. It is necessary for a diamond to have any kind of value in order for its value to be derived from aesthetic pleasure, yet it having any value at all is not sufficient for that argument we're referencing to be true. I think if we were to deny this necessary assumption, it would hurt the diamond-value argument even more than the example given here.
#feedback Why are there no examples for the must be true and negation tests? I would think that's handy information to have as part of a lesson before moving onto the questions.
can someone summarize what na questions are as simple as possible please thanks
It would be super helpful to include example question in many areas of this lesson so we can get it fully when reading.
so basically, the NA is the bare minimum the argument needs in order to have a chance of being logical while SA sets the bar very high making the argument logically valid
Where can I review "types of reasoning"? E.g. rule-application reasoning, causal reasoning, conditional reasoning, cost-benefit analysis, and reasoning by analogy.
I don't think there's a specific lesson, but during certain question types, he would go over and practice these reasonings. For example, rule-application is basically all of the PSA lessons and some of the SA questions; causal reasoning, cost-benefit, reasoning by analysis were seen a lot in WSE questions.
However, there was overlap. There were some questions in PSA that, in conjunction with the rule-application reasoning, used cost-benefit analysis or reasoning by analogy. I would go back to these specific lessons.
I hope that helps!!
I think it would be helpful to include a summary of each reasoning type along with key strategies/tips at some point in the curriculum. It would also be great if we could filter LR Qs that specifically use a given type of reasoning (if this is not possible already).
Although more than one type can be used in a given argument, I think it could still be beneficial! #feedback
Could someone explain this example in simple terms and what is NA is plz! The video has me confused :/ Thanks!
@isabellagirjikian Necessary Assumption is essentially a fact that were it untrue, no argument could be made.
Take the assumption given in the lesson "the amount of aesthetic pleasure a diamond provides is relevant to the value it commands". If this wasn't true, the entire argument falls apart. If aesthetic pleasure isn't relevant, then why would the jewels be valued the same at all and what cause would we have to think so? It just crumbles.
Do you guys watch the video and read the text as well?
@Imtryingggggg I usually just read the text and if I am still confused or lost I will also watch the video. I am just preparing myself for future lawyer and law school activities which is a lot of reading. Better to start now haha
u can't assume someone knows how to dribble a basketball if they've won 5 MVPs?
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge You misunderstand. He is saying winning 5 MVPS isn't necessary for being one the best players of all time. You could have 4, 3, 2, 10 MVP awards. Who cares if its 5. Who cares if its any. It's not necessary.
@SimonArmendariz I didnt say anything about being one of the best of all time. You misunderstand what I wrote. I said it's safe to assume someone knows how to dribble a basketball if they've won 5 mvps.
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge Ah. I mean that's true that that is a reasonable assumption, but those conditions were never put together like that in the previous lesson's example.
This may be completely wrong but I think this is a fun example that can help make things click :
Premise: I took Advil
Conclusion: Therefore, my hangover did not destroy me today.
NA:
I am not immune to hangovers
I am able to drink and process alcohol
I have a liver
I am a human
Negating all these assumptions would absolutely fail the argument
#idkifthisisfullyright #opentocorrections #followformorretips
Just to confirm.... is this rule sufficient and necessary? "Rule: the value of a diamond should derive solely from the aesthetic pleasure it provides."
Or, in the example, is it only the rule "the amount of aesthetic pleasure that a diamond provides is relevant to the value that it commands" that is necessary (but not sufficient)?
@e.wimoine To be sufficient it has to strengthen the conclusion to a degree that it is believable and possibly valid. To be necessary it just has to be grounds for which something can be true.