#feedback A lot of these sample questions are not available to preview (the small eye icon) so that we can try answering them on our own before watching the video, like they were in the older 7sage website. Would it be possible to add this option again? It's very helpful. Thank you
Its confusing that he relies so much on past lessons and refers to them often because I'm sure I'm not the only one who wanted to start with necessary assumption before sufficient and because in the lessons sufficient came first he keeps referring to it and its really throwing me off.
The argument really is missing a very important connection in order for the conclusion to follow logically. The conclusion says "some books published by GP are flawed", because P1 they don't explain the difference between hot and cold composting and P2 a gardening book that recommends adding compost needs to explain at least the basics of composting. See how there's an assumption that NEEDS to be made to conclude that some books published by GP are flawed? Explaining the difference between hot and cold composting needs to be (in part or fully) the basics of composting. This is exactly what answer c says, answer e is just saying not flawed gardening book→includes an explanation of at least the basics of composting but that does not help the conclusion follow logically. It is very important to identify the conclusion because that is what you need to strengthen.
Can someone explain how the negation of "/explain H and C -> /explain basics" translates to "/explain H and C AND explain basics"? Wouldn't the contrapositive just go back to the original answer? #feedback
I thought negation meant switching the SC and the NC and then negating them. So how is the negation of explanation of basics → explanation of hot vs. cold
explanation of hot v. cold and explanation of basics
This helped me understand the difference between NA and SA
Say you are buying something that costs $1, it is necessary for you to have the value of 1 cent, but 1 cent is not sufficient. If you have the value of $100, that is sufficient for purchasing the $1 item, but not necessary.
SA and NA overlap if you have exactly $1. $1 is both necessary and sufficient to purchase the item.
When looking at the argument's subject, and then the answer choice's subject, is it almost always going to match up? Like in this video, the subject being the book?
I have been so confused on the difference of NA and SA but the analogy that made me clearly understand is this...
A Necessary Assumption (NA) is like life support that keeps a patient alive. It gives the argument a chance to be true, but doesn't guarantee it, as other issues could still arise.
A Sufficient Assumption (SA) is like saying that as long as the patient is on life support, nothing can kill them. This guarantees the argument's conclusion, making it unbreakable.
In summary, an NA keeps the argument viable but not guaranteed, while an SA ensures the argument is conclusive.
in the most simplified way possible Iv'e come to understand NA as the fact that must the true for the argument to make sense could someone please confirm or deny wether this is a correct way to think about it?
The reading before this really helped me understand this question right away, I'm finally starting to visualize the right answers before they are even shown.
So if I am thinking about this correctly, an SA question is a premise that links the other premises to conclusion. However, a NA is a premise that is REQUIRED to conclude the argument?
Hi, are there specific lessons that cover how to identify whether a question uses rule-application reasoning, causal reasoning, conditional reasoning, cost-benefit analysis, and reasoning by analogy? #help Or does anyone have any tips on how to know what kind of question you're dealing with?
Can anyone explain why answer choice D is a sufficiency-necessity mistake? I'm a bit confused #help
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.
53 comments
Answer choices that bridge conditional gaps between the premises and conclusion are necessary, so (C) is necessary.
Question... on the actual LSAT will I be able to write on the question like so:
necessary assumption keeps it alive, sufficient assumption makes it invincible
Would someone correct my conditional logic steps that may lead to the condition that forms the answer:
P1: "some gardening books published by Garden Path recommend tilling the soil and adding compost before starting a new garden on a site"
(domain) gardening books:
published by GPP <-s-> tilling AND compost (1)
P2: "they (those same books) do not explain the difference between hot and cold composting."
published by GPP <-s-> / diff H&C composting (2)
P3: "any gardening book that recommends adding compost is flawed if it does not explain at least the basics of composting"
(domain) gardening books :
/ basics composting -> flawed (3)
Conclusion: "some books published by Garden Path are flawed."
published by GPP <-s-> flawed (4)
(4) is the same as :
flawed <-s-> published by GPP (5)
combining (5) and (2)
flawed <-s-> published by GPP <-s-> / diff H&C composting (6)
based off of (6)
flawed <-s-> / diff H&C composting (7) [NOTE: I realize we cannot do that due to the <s> relationship not being transitive, but how else to proceed?]
Combine (7) and (3)
/ basics composting ->/ diff H&C composting
contrapositive:
diff H&C composting -> basics composting
Based on the above D should be the answer perhaps?
Though certainly there is a flaw in there somewhere particularly with the <s> relationships inference etc.
#feedback A lot of these sample questions are not available to preview (the small eye icon) so that we can try answering them on our own before watching the video, like they were in the older 7sage website. Would it be possible to add this option again? It's very helpful. Thank you
Necessary = a portal that must be open, but doesn't guarantee arrival.
It’s like a required checkpoint — if it’s closed, you can’t go through.
Must be true for the argument to work at all.
Sufficient = a specific path that directly drops you at the goal.
It’s like stepping on a teleportation pad that guarantees you arrive at the conclusion.
Proves the conclusion is true.
Its confusing that he relies so much on past lessons and refers to them often because I'm sure I'm not the only one who wanted to start with necessary assumption before sufficient and because in the lessons sufficient came first he keeps referring to it and its really throwing me off.
#feedback
What are all the types of reasoning?
There's rule-application, conditional, causal... Is that it?
The argument really is missing a very important connection in order for the conclusion to follow logically. The conclusion says "some books published by GP are flawed", because P1 they don't explain the difference between hot and cold composting and P2 a gardening book that recommends adding compost needs to explain at least the basics of composting. See how there's an assumption that NEEDS to be made to conclude that some books published by GP are flawed? Explaining the difference between hot and cold composting needs to be (in part or fully) the basics of composting. This is exactly what answer c says, answer e is just saying not flawed gardening book→includes an explanation of at least the basics of composting but that does not help the conclusion follow logically. It is very important to identify the conclusion because that is what you need to strengthen.
Can someone explain how the negation of "/explain H and C -> /explain basics" translates to "/explain H and C AND explain basics"? Wouldn't the contrapositive just go back to the original answer? #feedback
Could someone explain why E is wrong?
I'm retaining NONE of this. Time for a break. Oh boy. I can only take so much butt kicking.
I thought negation meant switching the SC and the NC and then negating them. So how is the negation of
explanation of basics→ explanation of hot vs. coldexplanation of hot v. cold and explanation of basics
?
This helped me understand the difference between NA and SA
Say you are buying something that costs $1, it is necessary for you to have the value of 1 cent, but 1 cent is not sufficient. If you have the value of $100, that is sufficient for purchasing the $1 item, but not necessary.
SA and NA overlap if you have exactly $1. $1 is both necessary and sufficient to purchase the item.
Hope this helps someone as much as it helped me!
creds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjjkE6KGgb4
When looking at the argument's subject, and then the answer choice's subject, is it almost always going to match up? Like in this video, the subject being the book?
I have been so confused on the difference of NA and SA but the analogy that made me clearly understand is this...
A Necessary Assumption (NA) is like life support that keeps a patient alive. It gives the argument a chance to be true, but doesn't guarantee it, as other issues could still arise.
A Sufficient Assumption (SA) is like saying that as long as the patient is on life support, nothing can kill them. This guarantees the argument's conclusion, making it unbreakable.
In summary, an NA keeps the argument viable but not guaranteed, while an SA ensures the argument is conclusive.
in the most simplified way possible Iv'e come to understand NA as the fact that must the true for the argument to make sense could someone please confirm or deny wether this is a correct way to think about it?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-12/
The reading before this really helped me understand this question right away, I'm finally starting to visualize the right answers before they are even shown.
JY still the best teacher even with a sore throat
For the correct Answer choice C , when you did the contrapositive of the AC its like a MBT, because that contrapositive is supported by the stimulus
( the chain you did
/explain basics ---> flawed. #feedback
SA has made me feel fully defeated, hope to redeem myself with NA
So if I am thinking about this correctly, an SA question is a premise that links the other premises to conclusion. However, a NA is a premise that is REQUIRED to conclude the argument?
Hi, are there specific lessons that cover how to identify whether a question uses rule-application reasoning, causal reasoning, conditional reasoning, cost-benefit analysis, and reasoning by analogy? #help Or does anyone have any tips on how to know what kind of question you're dealing with?
Can anyone explain why answer choice D is a sufficiency-necessity mistake? I'm a bit confused #help