I like sports analogies. Necessary Assumption is defense, and SA is offense. NA is going to keep you from losing, but you need to score (SA) in order to win.
Could we even go so far as to replace "getting worse" with "becoming invalid"? Because without a NA then the argument no longer leads to the conclusion.
I feel like a better example is something like this:
You're the richest man alive.
NA: You have $1
NA: You have $100
NA: You have $1000
NA & SA: You have more money than any other living man.
SA: You have a trillion dollars.
The argument JY was giving related to a subjective matter - being the best basketball player alive. Being the richest man alive means something very specific. It would seem to me both sufficient and necessary to have more money than anyone (any other living man) if you wanted to be considered the richest man alive (assuming we are speaking about being rich in wealth).
In my example, we can make something as simple as having $1 the necessary assumption because it is necessary to have (at minimum) $1 to even be in the running of "richest man alive." But some necessary assumptions can give more support to the argument than others. Saying you have $100 is necessary and even better. Saying you have $1000 is necessary and even better than that!
Though having a trillion dollars would be sufficient as this indicates you are the richest man alive, as no individual has (or has ever had) that amount of money before, you don't need a trillion, it's not necessary because $250 billion would get the job done.
If one does well on the LSAT, then they studied hard.
However, one has to be alive to take the LSAT.
So if you're feeling discouraged, remember, everyone: even if we fail the sufficient assumption, at least we satisfy the necessary assumption by being alive.
I think it's helpful to envision an argument as a house of cards that must meet the height of a hanging piece of string to become "valid". At the base, there are many Necessary Assumptions and without the base, the house of cards would cease to exist. Knocking any one of these cards out would wreck the argument entirely. Strengthening, PSA, and SA cards will add varying degrees of height to the house of cards, scaling it up closer to the hanging piece of string that makes it "valid".
So basically without Necessary Assumptions, the argument couldn't even exist. While S, PSA, and SA questions bring support and augment an argument, NA questions are tasked with finding what is necessary for there to be an argument at all in the first place. So if you do the negation test, the argument quite literally dies
109 comments
Necessary Assumption: Basically life support for a question.
I like sports analogies. Necessary Assumption is defense, and SA is offense. NA is going to keep you from losing, but you need to score (SA) in order to win.
brilllllll
This comment just saved my life, thank you lol.
this is great
@drzewie2 i like this!
So is JY necessary for acing the LSAT? Cause ...without him, we'd be wrecked.
hell ya!!
i can’t even put in word how much I hate these questions 😭 SA &NA
@regggy Genuinely my kryptonite
NA allows me to exist as a person that wants to take the LSAT SA allows me to get a 180
I think about NA questions like covering a hole in the bottom of a ship (the argument) to prevent it to from sinking.
So when you negate a NA, you pierce a hole in the boat, and when you state a NA, you cover it up the bottom of the boat.
Necessary Assumptions don't make the argument stronger but they prevent the argument from getting worse.
Could we even go so far as to replace "getting worse" with "becoming invalid"? Because without a NA then the argument no longer leads to the conclusion.
You're the richest man alive.
NA: Your heart is beating.
SA: You have more money than anyone else.
I feel like a better example is something like this:
You're the richest man alive.
NA: You have $1
NA: You have $100
NA: You have $1000
NA & SA: You have more money than any other living man.
SA: You have a trillion dollars.
The argument JY was giving related to a subjective matter - being the best basketball player alive. Being the richest man alive means something very specific. It would seem to me both sufficient and necessary to have more money than anyone (any other living man) if you wanted to be considered the richest man alive (assuming we are speaking about being rich in wealth).
In my example, we can make something as simple as having $1 the necessary assumption because it is necessary to have (at minimum) $1 to even be in the running of "richest man alive." But some necessary assumptions can give more support to the argument than others. Saying you have $100 is necessary and even better. Saying you have $1000 is necessary and even better than that!
Though having a trillion dollars would be sufficient as this indicates you are the richest man alive, as no individual has (or has ever had) that amount of money before, you don't need a trillion, it's not necessary because $250 billion would get the job done.
Just my 2 cents.
I think this a good comment and revision. (King Solomon and Mansa Musa might count as trillionaires, not positive.)
#feedback
The written text under the videos is helpful and I’d love to see it added here!
NA: you don't play for the Knicks
Actually laughed out loud
Still relevant
I know this is 9 months old but we got rid of Melo and were now starting to win games. So soon it won't be an NA lol
If one does well on the LSAT, then they studied hard.
However, one has to be alive to take the LSAT.
So if you're feeling discouraged, remember, everyone: even if we fail the sufficient assumption, at least we satisfy the necessary assumption by being alive.
John will get Sandy's phone number.
NA: Sandy has a phone number.
SA: When John asks for a phone number, he always gets it.
Ok so NA provides minimum support while SA provide extreme support
I'm an artist so I think about NA and SA through an "art imitates life" lens
so in my head - say you want to paint a flower.
Necessary: you cannot have petals without a seed. Seed is the bare minimum
Sufficient: full growing conditions (seed + soil + water + sunlight + time) are sufficient if ALL of those are present, petals are guaranteed.
very general illustration and could be up for debate but it helps me at least!
I think it's helpful to envision an argument as a house of cards that must meet the height of a hanging piece of string to become "valid". At the base, there are many Necessary Assumptions and without the base, the house of cards would cease to exist. Knocking any one of these cards out would wreck the argument entirely. Strengthening, PSA, and SA cards will add varying degrees of height to the house of cards, scaling it up closer to the hanging piece of string that makes it "valid".
Necessary Assumption: you need it to not die.
I had literally written in my notes after the first NA video
necessary < strengthen < sufficient
lol glad to feel like im understanding!!
This is a very well illustrated and concise video. Great job.
The way I think about it is necessary assumption is the minimum amount required for the argument to REMAIN true
yes-- this is very helpful way of putting it together.
J.Y is the MVP.
So basically without Necessary Assumptions, the argument couldn't even exist. While S, PSA, and SA questions bring support and augment an argument, NA questions are tasked with finding what is necessary for there to be an argument at all in the first place. So if you do the negation test, the argument quite literally dies
Would it be correct to say that the NA makes the argument possible? I feel like thats my take away/understanding thus far.
Great stuff! Thank you, JY!
NA seems like a defensive tool like JY mentioned whereas SA seems like an offensive tool for your argument.
NA makes perfect sense but SA is the bane of my existence. make it make sense