I feel like I just intuitively answered this question correctly, as opposed to understanding it under the notion of Necessary Assumptions. Could someone explain it again in those terms?
These types of questions are really great opportunities for discovering what is best way for you as an individual to learn.
I've learned that using lawgic and writing it all out super confuses me and mostly leads me to the incorrect AC. However, when I think through the question in my mind and give myself time, (it took me 4-minutes to get this question) I nearly always get them correct.
Has anyone else noticed this about themselves? What kind of learning type is this?
This section is hurting my brain. The last question made only like 5% sense to me. This one, I was able to immediately know where the discrepancy was and hunted for the answer. wtf
Someone please help lol. After writing out "endorsement → [certain conditions]," JY says "[James] did something to make this conditional endorsement to go away. And what's the thing he could have done? The only thing he could have done?" And then says that James must have failed the necessary condition. But isn't it true that failing the necessary condition is not the only way to come to the conclusion of /endorsement? The contrapositive gives us /[certain conditions] → /endorsement. So fulfilling the /[certain conditions] sufficient condition is sufficient to come to the conclusion of /endorsement, but I thought we learned that just because there isn't a conditional statement, it doesn't mean that there are not other routes that can be taken to get to necessary condition. I.e., just because A → B doesn't mean that X → B can't also be true. So as it relates to this question, I don't see how answer choice E is necessary. I see how it's sufficient to make the argument valid and brings you to the conclusion of /endorsement, but aren't there other avenues that also could have been taken to get to the conclusion of /endorsement? For instance, can't it be true that maybe the proposal that the chair had seen actually did include all of the recommendations (meaning E is false), but the chair still decided not to endorse for another reason? Like maybe she was just in a bad mood that day? The argument doesn't seem to exclude this possibility. It only looks like it would exclude this possibility if the conditional had been "if and only if" rather than just "if."
I would really appreciate some help!! I'm really struggling to see how this is a necessary assumption and not just a sufficient assumption. Thank you!!
Im not sure why it is so important to understand what kind of reasoning we are using. I havent found that very helpful in "lighting the way to the right answer choice". Could someone let me know what kind of method they are using in regards to what they do once they ID the reasoning??
I was missing SO many of these SA and NA questions before I just started attempting to predict what the correct answer would say. Figuring out the missing link and then finding an answer that resembled my phrasing has worked for the last 7 questions (and the drilling portion). I haven't missed a question since (but now I'm jinxing myself)
I keep getting these right but I actually have no idea how because I am thinking them through way less lol... I think overthinking these questions makes them wayyy harder
I got caught up in the language of "seen all of the recommendations". Isn't it possible that he just didn't show it to her at all? So it is not necessary that it is the case that he didn't include all of the recommendations? Couldn't it be either? Either he didn't show it to her at all or he showed her only partial recommendations. I may be overthinking the language in the question but I thought both possibilities were true. This is ultimately why I didn't pick AC E because I thought it would include both options. Is it just implied that he had to show her at least something for it to be misleading?
Even just the language of the wrong answers were a signal. POE helped alot here. The argument is that it was MISLEADING, no one cares what he "thought" or what "would" happen. That's what helped me here.
Confused at the initial setup where JY fails the sufficient condition and then goes hunting for an answer that fails the necessary. Is this because we are looking for an answer that forces the sufficient to fail? Maybe I just answered my own question?
Would it be accurate to say this stimulus was a biconditional rule? That is: endorsement ↔ certain conditions
It seems like the phrasing would imply that, and J.Y.'s explanation that it is both necessary and sufficient makes me think of biconditional rules from logic games. #help
0
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.
48 comments
how do you blind review with the new 7sage?
PERIODD everything is starting to make sense
I feel like I just intuitively answered this question correctly, as opposed to understanding it under the notion of Necessary Assumptions. Could someone explain it again in those terms?
honestly all the answer choices just sounded too stupid and complicated which made E the only correct AC for me haha
I dont understand how this is different from SA?? Anyone else concur? #feedback
Find the conclusion, find the rule that breaks it, ez
These types of questions are really great opportunities for discovering what is best way for you as an individual to learn.
I've learned that using lawgic and writing it all out super confuses me and mostly leads me to the incorrect AC. However, when I think through the question in my mind and give myself time, (it took me 4-minutes to get this question) I nearly always get them correct.
Has anyone else noticed this about themselves? What kind of learning type is this?
What kind of reasoning is being used in the stimulus here?
This section is hurting my brain. The last question made only like 5% sense to me. This one, I was able to immediately know where the discrepancy was and hunted for the answer. wtf
I don't understand necessary assumptions.
Someone please help lol. After writing out "endorsement → [certain conditions]," JY says "[James] did something to make this conditional endorsement to go away. And what's the thing he could have done? The only thing he could have done?" And then says that James must have failed the necessary condition. But isn't it true that failing the necessary condition is not the only way to come to the conclusion of /endorsement? The contrapositive gives us /[certain conditions] → /endorsement. So fulfilling the /[certain conditions] sufficient condition is sufficient to come to the conclusion of /endorsement, but I thought we learned that just because there isn't a conditional statement, it doesn't mean that there are not other routes that can be taken to get to necessary condition. I.e., just because A → B doesn't mean that X → B can't also be true. So as it relates to this question, I don't see how answer choice E is necessary. I see how it's sufficient to make the argument valid and brings you to the conclusion of /endorsement, but aren't there other avenues that also could have been taken to get to the conclusion of /endorsement? For instance, can't it be true that maybe the proposal that the chair had seen actually did include all of the recommendations (meaning E is false), but the chair still decided not to endorse for another reason? Like maybe she was just in a bad mood that day? The argument doesn't seem to exclude this possibility. It only looks like it would exclude this possibility if the conditional had been "if and only if" rather than just "if."
I would really appreciate some help!! I'm really struggling to see how this is a necessary assumption and not just a sufficient assumption. Thank you!!
First question I’ve ever gotten correct in under target time. LETTSS GOOOOO!!
#help
Im not sure why it is so important to understand what kind of reasoning we are using. I havent found that very helpful in "lighting the way to the right answer choice". Could someone let me know what kind of method they are using in regards to what they do once they ID the reasoning??
I get all of the "you try" questions right then usually struggle with the drill questions at the end :/
HOW DO U KNOW whether to map or not? Bc the previous one u don’t map? HELP
I was missing SO many of these SA and NA questions before I just started attempting to predict what the correct answer would say. Figuring out the missing link and then finding an answer that resembled my phrasing has worked for the last 7 questions (and the drilling portion). I haven't missed a question since (but now I'm jinxing myself)
I keep getting these right but I actually have no idea how because I am thinking them through way less lol... I think overthinking these questions makes them wayyy harder
I got caught up in the language of "seen all of the recommendations". Isn't it possible that he just didn't show it to her at all? So it is not necessary that it is the case that he didn't include all of the recommendations? Couldn't it be either? Either he didn't show it to her at all or he showed her only partial recommendations. I may be overthinking the language in the question but I thought both possibilities were true. This is ultimately why I didn't pick AC E because I thought it would include both options. Is it just implied that he had to show her at least something for it to be misleading?
Even just the language of the wrong answers were a signal. POE helped alot here. The argument is that it was MISLEADING, no one cares what he "thought" or what "would" happen. That's what helped me here.
Confused at the initial setup where JY fails the sufficient condition and then goes hunting for an answer that fails the necessary. Is this because we are looking for an answer that forces the sufficient to fail? Maybe I just answered my own question?
This question really helped me understand how to answer this questions. I hope it sticks throughout the remainder of the questions going forward
Would it be accurate to say this stimulus was a biconditional rule? That is: endorsement ↔ certain conditions
It seems like the phrasing would imply that, and J.Y.'s explanation that it is both necessary and sufficient makes me think of biconditional rules from logic games. #help