Subscription pricing
hey guys i keep on getting tangled with answer options that mention things like "mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary one" or similarly. can someone explain this to me please
1
hey guys i keep on getting tangled with answer options that mention things like "mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary one" or similarly. can someone explain this to me please
5 comments
Do these flashcards
https://quizlet.com/501603517/conditional-indicators-lsat-flash-cards/
You can spend time to understand the logic as you go, but it's something you need to be quick at recognizing on the test so use these to train your brain to go "oh that's a sufficient/necessary indicator"
hi hi! don't worry this is one of the more complex concepts that tend to confuse many so you're not alone.
I would say that the best way to go about it is to first truly understand the difference between what sufficient vs necessary means. I would even encourage you to practice writing and solving examples of each to truly grasp the concept. It really is simple! just gotta tell yourself that until you believe it haha.
In simple terms: sufficient guarantees something will happen
necessary is required for something to happen
So an example is this: Tires are necessary to drive a car (you need tires for the car to drive) but tires are not sufficient to drive a car because there are other factors that could potentially not allow it to (no engine, no suspension, etc).
another way to think about it is: a sufficient condition alone is enough to know the outcome will happen (100%)
a necessary condition alone is not enough to know something will happen (it could or couldn't) but the important distinction is that in order to the outcome to happen, it needs the necessary condition
Understand this and it will start making more sense
So when you're practicing and the answer choice has this concept, make sure you understand what the argument did. An argument that confuses sufficient for necessary or necessary for sufficient will essentially claim that something required for the outcome will guarantee the outcome and vice versa.
ex: eggs are required to bake my grandma's cake. although i have eggs, i don't have all the necessary ingredients. my oven is on and ready to bake the cake. therefore, because i have eggs, i will successfully bake my grandma's cake.
what's the flaw? i confuse something necessary (eggs) for an outcome (cake) as sufficient for an outcome.
kinda a wonky example but hopefully it helps a little haha
watch videos or explanation until you understand and practice!!
lmk if i can clarify :)