For those of you with mathematic minds, the way I am thinking of the Necessary Assumption strength of support is to treat them as asymptotic (asymptote). You can't ever get to 0 by dividing something in half. For the necessary assumption, the support can be more and more marginal but it is always providing SOME support.
I think this is a nice and useful diagram for comparing the support on these question types. I do think, though, that Strengthen really spans the entire spectrum on this diagram. For example, there are Strengthen questions were the correct answer merely defends the argument against a possible attack. You're given an argument that has several potential "wrecking balls," and the correct answer choice simply defends against one of those "wrecking balls." This does leave the argument in a slightly better position, but there could still be other "wrecking balls" left unaddressed. On the other hand, you could get a Strengthen question, and one of the answer choices makes the conclusion valid. Proving the conclusion true certainly strengthens the argument (it's the ultimate strengthener!), but you wouldn't eliminate that answer choice because it provides too much support (so much that it would even be correct if the question stems asked for a SA instead). I guess I'm just saying a correct answer choice to a Strengthen question can strengthen the argument just a little, or so much so that it makes the argument valid.
Thanks for bringing this diagram back. It makes a lot more sense now.
Necessary assumptions are literally just keeping the argument alive and the best example of that is a necessary assumption that any argument involving people today which provides that they are "alive."
NAs meet a very lowwww bar or loww threshhold that must be obviously there, otherwise, everything falls apart.
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.
NA is REQUIRED for the argument to be able to function without dying. SA strengthens the argument and prevents weakening of the argument.
10
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.
99 comments
This is a very well illustrated and concise video. Great job.
#feedback
The written text under the videos is helpful and I’d love to see it added here!
Love NA questions hate SA questions lol
Great stuff! Thank you, JY!
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.
Ok so NA provides minimum support while SA provide extreme support
This was a great visual! Super helpful.
Would it be correct to say that the NA makes the argument possible? I feel like thats my take away/understanding thus far.
For those of you with mathematic minds, the way I am thinking of the Necessary Assumption strength of support is to treat them as asymptotic (asymptote). You can't ever get to 0 by dividing something in half. For the necessary assumption, the support can be more and more marginal but it is always providing SOME support.
NA allows me to exist as a person that wants to take the LSAT SA allows me to get a 180
ignore accidentally posted notes
You're the richest man alive.
NA: Your heart is beating.
SA: You have more money than anyone else.
Strengthen helps strengthen relationship between premises and conclusion
PSA makes argument almost valid, just lesser degree of certainty with assumption?
SA basically makes the argument perfect
NA is something already understood, does not add support for validity of argument?
#help (Added by Admin)
#help kinda confused how NA "gives no support" yet is needed for argument ?
I think this is a nice and useful diagram for comparing the support on these question types. I do think, though, that Strengthen really spans the entire spectrum on this diagram. For example, there are Strengthen questions were the correct answer merely defends the argument against a possible attack. You're given an argument that has several potential "wrecking balls," and the correct answer choice simply defends against one of those "wrecking balls." This does leave the argument in a slightly better position, but there could still be other "wrecking balls" left unaddressed. On the other hand, you could get a Strengthen question, and one of the answer choices makes the conclusion valid. Proving the conclusion true certainly strengthens the argument (it's the ultimate strengthener!), but you wouldn't eliminate that answer choice because it provides too much support (so much that it would even be correct if the question stems asked for a SA instead). I guess I'm just saying a correct answer choice to a Strengthen question can strengthen the argument just a little, or so much so that it makes the argument valid.
Thanks for bringing this diagram back. It makes a lot more sense now.
Necessary assumptions are literally just keeping the argument alive and the best example of that is a necessary assumption that any argument involving people today which provides that they are "alive."
NAs meet a very lowwww bar or loww threshhold that must be obviously there, otherwise, everything falls apart.
What is a PSA???? i think i missed that lesson
#help
this dude is effortlessly funny
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.
So the necessary assumption is needed or is "necessary" in order for the argument to exist or function? #help
Mean girls scene and you DIE
"NA is just preventing you from dying" LOL I need that
Does a necessary assumption not “strengthen” an argument by eliminating one possible way the argument could be made invalid?
Could a NA be the answer to a strengthen question? #help
basketball analogy helps alot!
NA is REQUIRED for the argument to be able to function without dying. SA strengthens the argument and prevents weakening of the argument.