This helped me really process what I was doing wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but when doing Sufficient assumption questions, the new concept is in the conclusion and not in the premises. Meanwhile Necessary assumption questions have "new concepts" but here it's known as the "missing piece" and it's found in the premises not in the conclusion
Amazing lesson. I have struggled a lot with NA questions on recent prep tests, but I felt the Core Curriculum was not really what I needed to re-review. This high level summary was perfect. After reviewing this video and taking notes on the main lessons, I think I was able to identify the key areas I was struggling with. Thank you very much!
I ended up picking D because I knew A was reversed. But the word "sometimes" in D threw me off. If making major changes in their behavior is the necessary condition, doesn't the word sometimes make the answer wrong?
@praksesprepper The premise tells us that reptiles are "incapable" of making major changes in behavior. So the link the author assumes is:
incapable of major changes --> incapable of complex reasoning
contrapositive:
capable of complex reasoning --> capable of major changes
D says sometimes because it's matching up to "capable of major changes". In fact D would be wrong if it said "if reptiles were capable, they would always make major changes" because that's too extreme for the actual line of reasoning.
i always confuse sufficient and necessary. i can always narrow it down to 2 possible answers, yet i tend to choose the one that confuses necessary and sufficient. i dont know how to correct this ugh.
@Ssss Return to the Conditional and Set Logic module -- this is probably the source of a lot of your confusion with sufficient and necessary conditions. It can take a lot of practice to get fluent in these concepts.
@Ssss One thing that helped me when I was first starting with conditional logic is to map out every single question and answer that uses conditionals.
I would take a practice question under normal time control (ie try to answer efficiently), then on blind review, I would diagram the question, understand from that diagram what piece was missing that I should be looking for, then diagram all the answers, and understand why the wrong answers didn't fit/interact with the diagram of the question.
This will help you actively expose yourself to sufficiency/necessity, and you will soon be able to "diagram" mentally and see the missing pieces without having to put pen to paper.
for some reason I do better on necessary assumption question than sufficient assumption questions... I'm just so confused on why necessary assumption makes more sense to me than sufficient. I think I view them as the same? is there a specific difference between them that others have noticed?
Such a helpful explainer with great take-away tips; thank you Kevin!
One question: in Question 4 re: macaque monkeys, you mentioned that B is easy to negate because you can just take away the "not" in a sentence that is "Subject is not Predicate", ie negated AC becomes "Subject is Predicate".
Is it it always okay to do that, or are there some parameters around when we can do that? (for example, if the Subject is singular not plural)?
Or are there cases where just dropping the "not" may not work how we need it to for a negation test? Ie, where taking a way the "not" needs to be a "some" instead of "all" relationship? ie, "Subject is not Predicate" needs to be negated to "Subject is SOMETIMES Predicate" or "Some Subject(s) are Predicate" to properly evaluate whether it breaks the argument?
Is it wrong to assume in Q2 AC A is too broad as well because it says "Animals" As opposed to the reptile in question? It feels like a subtlety that the argument is not as broad as AC A makes it out to be?
@Danny_F I think this is debatable. The "reptile" aspect of the argument didn't seem to be play a role in the logic, so arguably the author's assumption isn't narrowed to reptiles alone.
@e.wimoine The second half of the Logic of Intersecting Sets module discusses this! But you bring up a good point; maybe there should be a Fast Track - Negation
@Kevin_Lin yes, a Fast Track - Negation video would be super helpful! Especially where negation leads to double negatives; how we can read them in a way that makes more sense.
These lessons are incredibly useful, but there has been an issue with it buffering indefinitely very frequently. Is this happening to anyone else, or is this a me problem?
@Kevin_Lin Yes, for me, it also happened in the Must Be True video, shortly after you started diagramming, (I think that was question 5?). I still got a lot out of it, but it would have been great to finish it.
However, I see so many gaps in my ability with NA because of it. haha. This is probably the most difficult concept for me and has been throughout my entire study journey.
Thank you for bringing more clarity to this challenge.
The key takeaways at the end are so helpful. I can understand the questions on their own, but finding patterns in logic is harder to grasp when working on my own. I believe pattern recognition separates the good from the great. this is FANTASTIC.
@owenm I thought of it as what if someone works really well for 40 hours but anymore leads to worse performance. As in there's no difference between like 10 and 30 hrs. Does that mindset help?
These are wonderful and really helping me to identify the areas that I need the most practice in. I must say though.....the 'Moses of the hot spring' line really made me laugh.
Super helpful!! Please keep making these fast track videos. I feel like they solidify the core curriculum, and are perfect to watch when I need to review the approach to a specific question type at a high level, and not re-watch question specific lessons.
These are the perfect videos for me. I always struggle to stay alert when the explanations are too long or in depth because I understand the basics. These fast-track videos have helped me understand these questions types a lot better. Please keep making these.
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
42 comments
This helped me really process what I was doing wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but when doing Sufficient assumption questions, the new concept is in the conclusion and not in the premises. Meanwhile Necessary assumption questions have "new concepts" but here it's known as the "missing piece" and it's found in the premises not in the conclusion
Amazing lesson. I have struggled a lot with NA questions on recent prep tests, but I felt the Core Curriculum was not really what I needed to re-review. This high level summary was perfect. After reviewing this video and taking notes on the main lessons, I think I was able to identify the key areas I was struggling with. Thank you very much!
I ended up picking D because I knew A was reversed. But the word "sometimes" in D threw me off. If making major changes in their behavior is the necessary condition, doesn't the word sometimes make the answer wrong?
@praksesprepper The premise tells us that reptiles are "incapable" of making major changes in behavior. So the link the author assumes is:
incapable of major changes --> incapable of complex reasoning
contrapositive:
capable of complex reasoning --> capable of major changes
D says sometimes because it's matching up to "capable of major changes". In fact D would be wrong if it said "if reptiles were capable, they would always make major changes" because that's too extreme for the actual line of reasoning.
@Kevin_Lin That makes sense- thank you so much!!
im scared
Ahhh yes my biggest weakness
Is it possible to get transcripts for the video lessons?
@tspinnanger I'll look into it. Instead of a transcript, I might just include a summary of the takeaways below the video.
@Kevin_Lin I'll be adding a short text summary of key points to each lesson. Should occur within the next week or two.
i always confuse sufficient and necessary. i can always narrow it down to 2 possible answers, yet i tend to choose the one that confuses necessary and sufficient. i dont know how to correct this ugh.
@Ssss Return to the Conditional and Set Logic module -- this is probably the source of a lot of your confusion with sufficient and necessary conditions. It can take a lot of practice to get fluent in these concepts.
@Ssss One thing that helped me when I was first starting with conditional logic is to map out every single question and answer that uses conditionals.
I would take a practice question under normal time control (ie try to answer efficiently), then on blind review, I would diagram the question, understand from that diagram what piece was missing that I should be looking for, then diagram all the answers, and understand why the wrong answers didn't fit/interact with the diagram of the question.
This will help you actively expose yourself to sufficiency/necessity, and you will soon be able to "diagram" mentally and see the missing pieces without having to put pen to paper.
for some reason I do better on necessary assumption question than sufficient assumption questions... I'm just so confused on why necessary assumption makes more sense to me than sufficient. I think I view them as the same? is there a specific difference between them that others have noticed?
I feel that this is my weak suit lol
Such a helpful explainer with great take-away tips; thank you Kevin!
One question: in Question 4 re: macaque monkeys, you mentioned that B is easy to negate because you can just take away the "not" in a sentence that is "Subject is not Predicate", ie negated AC becomes "Subject is Predicate".
Is it it always okay to do that, or are there some parameters around when we can do that? (for example, if the Subject is singular not plural)?
Or are there cases where just dropping the "not" may not work how we need it to for a negation test? Ie, where taking a way the "not" needs to be a "some" instead of "all" relationship? ie, "Subject is not Predicate" needs to be negated to "Subject is SOMETIMES Predicate" or "Some Subject(s) are Predicate" to properly evaluate whether it breaks the argument?
Is it wrong to assume in Q2 AC A is too broad as well because it says "Animals" As opposed to the reptile in question? It feels like a subtlety that the argument is not as broad as AC A makes it out to be?
@Danny_F I think this is debatable. The "reptile" aspect of the argument didn't seem to be play a role in the logic, so arguably the author's assumption isn't narrowed to reptiles alone.
WOW 7 hit me luck a truck, Thank you Kevin, you have been so helpful.
HOLYYYY question 6 was not it man.
this is super helpful.
which lesson would you advise is best for becoming a pro at negation?
@e.wimoine The second half of the Logic of Intersecting Sets module discusses this! But you bring up a good point; maybe there should be a Fast Track - Negation
@Kevin_Lin yes, a Fast Track - Negation video would be super helpful! Especially where negation leads to double negatives; how we can read them in a way that makes more sense.
@Kevin_Lin Yes please!
These lessons are incredibly useful, but there has been an issue with it buffering indefinitely very frequently. Is this happening to anyone else, or is this a me problem?
@Tateclarke24 Yes, I'm having the same issue with the buffering starting in the middle of the explanation for question 6. Frustrating....
@whouse737 Have you encountered this for other videos?
@Kevin_Lin Yes, for me, it also happened in the Must Be True video, shortly after you started diagramming, (I think that was question 5?). I still got a lot out of it, but it would have been great to finish it.
These lessons are incredible.
However, I see so many gaps in my ability with NA because of it. haha. This is probably the most difficult concept for me and has been throughout my entire study journey.
Thank you for bringing more clarity to this challenge.
I really appreciate these additional lessons.
The key takeaways at the end are so helpful. I can understand the questions on their own, but finding patterns in logic is harder to grasp when working on my own. I believe pattern recognition separates the good from the great. this is FANTASTIC.
#5 C looks pretty good, even after hearing why it's wrong :'(
@owenm I thought of it as what if someone works really well for 40 hours but anymore leads to worse performance. As in there's no difference between like 10 and 30 hrs. Does that mindset help?
@WilliamZiebellRichards I feel like C to me doesn't even look that great but it seems no worse than A which is a difficult thing to contend with
These are wonderful and really helping me to identify the areas that I need the most practice in. I must say though.....the 'Moses of the hot spring' line really made me laugh.
THANK YOU! This is super helpful!!
This is absolutely superb!
Super helpful!! Please keep making these fast track videos. I feel like they solidify the core curriculum, and are perfect to watch when I need to review the approach to a specific question type at a high level, and not re-watch question specific lessons.
yayyyy new video!!! thank so much Kevin! Just finished this and looking forward to future fast track videos!!!
These are the perfect videos for me. I always struggle to stay alert when the explanations are too long or in depth because I understand the basics. These fast-track videos have helped me understand these questions types a lot better. Please keep making these.