A Must Be True (MBT) question asks you to identify a statement that is guaranteed to be true based on the information provided in the argument or passage. You need to select the answer that must logically follow from the facts, premises, or details given in the stimulus.
Key Point: The correct answer must be supported by the premises in the stimulus. There cannot be any assumptions or guesses; it should be something that is always true based on what’s given.
From what I understand, most strongly supported answers are the ones that are most likely to be true based on the information provided in the stimulus. They aren’t guaranteed but are strongly backed by the details in the passage.
On the other hand, pseudo-sufficient assumptions are ones that might seem like they support the argument, but they don't actually ensure the argument's conclusion. They look like they do the job but aren’t truly necessary or sufficient on their own.
When we are looking for a necessary assumption, we are looking for the assumption that already exists in the argument. By asking us to find the already present assumption, the argument is not asking us to come up with a sufficient assumption. It wants us to find the assumption the argument is already making. A sufficient assumption will force the conclusion to occur, but it does not necessarily have to be true.
Notice how "is most supportedby..." is in the passive voice. The direction is from the stimulus to the inference (the A/C) we can best draw from it. The inference doesn't do the heavy lifting on the stimulus here, but it's because of something or many things the stimulus said that we're able to reasonably add one more thing that wasn't stated before.
STRENGTHEN:
"Adds most support for" is in the active voice. That means that whatever the correct A/C turns out to be, it is intended to do the heavy lifting, and the flow is from the correct A/C (the strengthener) back up to the stimulus. In other words we are "actively" inserting whatever the correct strengthening premise is to bolster the argument we have been given.
Does this distinction make better sense?
Btw, it may be a little hazy now, but your understanding of how these Q stems (and their various other "masks") differ will sharpen as you encounter more of them.
To 7Sage Administrators: I just wanted to point out a spelling error in one of the answers of the questions above, #34 listed the answer as Main Point/Concusion when it should be Main Point/Conclusion. I know it's just a spelling mistake but I just wanted to bring this to your attention. #help
The PSA questions tend to ask about a principle that would justify the argument. There might be PSA questions that do not adhere to this rule, but I don't think SA questions ever have the word 'principle' in them.
I think it's important to note that SA questions ask for 100% validity, while PSA questions are not looking for the 100%, but rather something that's stronger than a strengthening but slightly weaker than a SA AC. It might therefore be useful to distinguish between these questions so as to not get confused looking for a perfectly valid AC in a PSA question for instance.
What’s the main difference between pseudo sufficient assumption vs. principle?
Is it just that PSA is a weaker (not logically airtight) version of a SA question, and that principle questions will always invoke some kind of moral action/ ethics doctrine to mimic? #help
Yes, you are correct. Also, principle questions will ask you to apply a principle from the stimulus to the answer choice (prove down), whereas pseudo sufficient assumption questions ask you to identify a principle in the answer choice and apply it to the stimulus (prove up). Hope this helps!
Sufficient assumption questions ask you to choose a premise that would guarantee the passage's conclusion. MBT questions ask you to choose a statement that must be true based on the premises of the passage.
Sufficient assumption is an assumption/element/piece of info that would enable the argument conclusion validly follow. In other words, there is a ‘gap’ in the argument and a SA functions to fill that gap so that the argument will be valid.
For example:
Freedom of speech is important, therefore it’s a right.
There is a gap in this simple argument which is: it’s ‘assuming’ if something is important, then it’s a right.
A correct SA could be worded in various ways one of which could be:
“Anything that’s important is a right.”
Now if we plug this back into the argument the conclusion will be valid;
“Freedom of speech is important, and anything that’s important is a right. Therefore, freedom of speech is a right.”
Now contrasts this to a MBT.
A MBT is an inference that validly followsfrom the argument, meaning there isn’t necessarily a gap and a MBT doesn’t have to ‘enable’ the validity of the conclusion but follows/inferred from the given info in the argument, be it an implicit inference we push out or else an explicit restatement of a part of the stimulus.
For instance:
Freedom of speech is important, yet ‘shouting out fire’ in public with no legit reason isn’t considered important.
That’s it. You see, we might not even have an argument in a conventional P/C sense but there is an inference we could deduce from the given info that’s MBT, which is: “shouting out fire in public without a legit ground is not considered as a form of freedom of speech.”
In lawgic you could see it as:
A → B, then the argument tells us something that’s B, what can we infer/conclude/MBT? —A.
Sufficient Assumptions would be:
A, therefore B
What’s the gap? — if A, then B (A → B).
The arguments could get way more complex and nuanced than this in terms of the structure, details and language but the difference in framework remains.
I must remember that for stems like #2, "Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?", the word "is" means to find the NECESSARY ASSUMPTION.
Can someone explain to me more thoroughly why #33 is a Weaken question? I know it has "counter" in it, however I got swayed away from a Weaken school of thought when I saw "logically" in it. I guessed that is was a Pseudo question, as I don't think I've seen "logically" in a Weaken question.
If you are presenting a counter to another argument then you are weakening it. Albert is going to do whatever it take to weaken argument therefore making his stronger.
@Freddy_D gave a great answer, but I'll just add another way to look at it. In MBT questions you are working from the stimulus to the answer choices, that is, you are tasked with figuring out what can be inferred or derived from the stimulus, given that the information therein is true. With NA assumption questions, the information flow is the opposite. You are trying to find an answer that must be added to the premises in the stimulus for the argument to be logically acceptable.
Well, for both NA and MBT you are correct that both answer choices must be true; however, the key difference is why they must be true and how the answer choice functions. With a MBT you are essentially looking for a conclusion that must be true based on the premises that are provided in the stimulus thus creating a valid argument. With NA questions the stimulus already contains an argument (possibly a valid one) and you are tasked with finding an answer choice that must be true but also protects the existing argument.
#24 is asking you to strengthen the argument, the indicator in the question stem is "...most strengthens" the editorialist argument.
#32 is asking you for a pseudo sufficient assumption, the indicator in the question stem is "...principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?" it works the same way as a strengthening question, but in PSA questions it just asking for something that helps the argument in some sort of way. I hope this helps.
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.
48 comments
43\46!
37/46
31/46 in 6 min
A Must Be True (MBT) question asks you to identify a statement that is guaranteed to be true based on the information provided in the argument or passage. You need to select the answer that must logically follow from the facts, premises, or details given in the stimulus.
Key Point: The correct answer must be supported by the premises in the stimulus. There cannot be any assumptions or guesses; it should be something that is always true based on what’s given.
21.7% Flaw/Descriptive Weakening
Strengthen*
Can someone clarify the differences between most strongly supported and pseudo sufficient
#help (Added by Admin)
From what I understand, most strongly supported answers are the ones that are most likely to be true based on the information provided in the stimulus. They aren’t guaranteed but are strongly backed by the details in the passage.
On the other hand, pseudo-sufficient assumptions are ones that might seem like they support the argument, but they don't actually ensure the argument's conclusion. They look like they do the job but aren’t truly necessary or sufficient on their own.
"Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?" Is a Necessary Assumption, why is this? #help
Hey there!
When we are looking for a necessary assumption, we are looking for the assumption that already exists in the argument. By asking us to find the already present assumption, the argument is not asking us to come up with a sufficient assumption. It wants us to find the assumption the argument is already making. A sufficient assumption will force the conclusion to occur, but it does not necessarily have to be true.
Hope this helps!
another 5/5 timed no br.
-
28. Which one of the following is most supported by the information above?
MSS
21. Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the conclusion of the argument?
Strengthen
Why?
#help (Added by Admin)
MSS:
Notice how "is most supported by..." is in the passive voice. The direction is from the stimulus to the inference (the A/C) we can best draw from it. The inference doesn't do the heavy lifting on the stimulus here, but it's because of something or many things the stimulus said that we're able to reasonably add one more thing that wasn't stated before.
STRENGTHEN:
"Adds most support for" is in the active voice. That means that whatever the correct A/C turns out to be, it is intended to do the heavy lifting, and the flow is from the correct A/C (the strengthener) back up to the stimulus. In other words we are "actively" inserting whatever the correct strengthening premise is to bolster the argument we have been given.
Does this distinction make better sense?
Btw, it may be a little hazy now, but your understanding of how these Q stems (and their various other "masks") differ will sharpen as you encounter more of them.
To 7Sage Administrators: I just wanted to point out a spelling error in one of the answers of the questions above, #34 listed the answer as Main Point/Concusion when it should be Main Point/Conclusion. I know it's just a spelling mistake but I just wanted to bring this to your attention. #help
Hi there,
Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. We appreciate it! The typo has been fixed!
To Juliet ,
I think you made a typo when typing out typo! Please correct me if I am wrong!
Hi there,
Sorry! Thanks for pointing that out!
lol
how important is it to know the difference between strengthen and PSA questions? I have a particularly difficult distinguishing between the two
#help (Added by Admin)
The PSA questions tend to ask about a principle that would justify the argument. There might be PSA questions that do not adhere to this rule, but I don't think SA questions ever have the word 'principle' in them.
I think it's important to note that SA questions ask for 100% validity, while PSA questions are not looking for the 100%, but rather something that's stronger than a strengthening but slightly weaker than a SA AC. It might therefore be useful to distinguish between these questions so as to not get confused looking for a perfectly valid AC in a PSA question for instance.
thank you, the best explanation ever
F L A W / D E S C R I P T I V E W E A K E N I N G
What’s the main difference between pseudo sufficient assumption vs. principle?
Is it just that PSA is a weaker (not logically airtight) version of a SA question, and that principle questions will always invoke some kind of moral action/ ethics doctrine to mimic? #help
Yes, you are correct. Also, principle questions will ask you to apply a principle from the stimulus to the answer choice (prove down), whereas pseudo sufficient assumption questions ask you to identify a principle in the answer choice and apply it to the stimulus (prove up). Hope this helps!
I made a quizlet of some of the question stems: https://quizlet.com/_6tjq9l
always someone thank you :D
Can someone help me to understand the difference between Sufficient Assumption and Must be True questions? #help
Sufficient assumption questions ask you to choose a premise that would guarantee the passage's conclusion. MBT questions ask you to choose a statement that must be true based on the premises of the passage.
Sufficient assumption is an assumption/element/piece of info that would enable the argument conclusion validly follow. In other words, there is a ‘gap’ in the argument and a SA functions to fill that gap so that the argument will be valid.
For example:
Freedom of speech is important, therefore it’s a right.
There is a gap in this simple argument which is: it’s ‘assuming’ if something is important, then it’s a right.
A correct SA could be worded in various ways one of which could be:
“Anything that’s important is a right.”
Now if we plug this back into the argument the conclusion will be valid;
“Freedom of speech is important, and anything that’s important is a right. Therefore, freedom of speech is a right.”
Now contrasts this to a MBT.
A MBT is an inference that validly follows from the argument, meaning there isn’t necessarily a gap and a MBT doesn’t have to ‘enable’ the validity of the conclusion but follows/inferred from the given info in the argument, be it an implicit inference we push out or else an explicit restatement of a part of the stimulus.
For instance:
Freedom of speech is important, yet ‘shouting out fire’ in public with no legit reason isn’t considered important.
That’s it. You see, we might not even have an argument in a conventional P/C sense but there is an inference we could deduce from the given info that’s MBT, which is: “shouting out fire in public without a legit ground is not considered as a form of freedom of speech.”
In lawgic you could see it as:
A → B, then the argument tells us something that’s
B, what can we infer/conclude/MBT? —A.Sufficient Assumptions would be:
A, therefore B
What’s the gap? — if A, then B (A → B).
The arguments could get way more complex and nuanced than this in terms of the structure, details and language but the difference in framework remains.
Hope this helps.
I must remember that for stems like #2, "Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?", the word "is" means to find the NECESSARY ASSUMPTION.
The argument's conclusion follows logically from its premises if which one of the following is assumed?- S.A.
Can someone explain to me more thoroughly why #33 is a Weaken question? I know it has "counter" in it, however I got swayed away from a Weaken school of thought when I saw "logically" in it. I guessed that is was a Pseudo question, as I don't think I've seen "logically" in a Weaken question.
#help (Added by Admin)
If you are presenting a counter to another argument then you are weakening it. Albert is going to do whatever it take to weaken argument therefore making his stronger.
I plan on doing all of these LR question stem quizzes over and over again. They are so helpful for reinforcement.
What is the difference between MBT and MSS? I keep getting the two mixed up.
NVM - I found it on the next page!
To answer for the sake of answering:
MBT: is logically valid based on the statements in the question stimulus.
MSS: often is the conclusion of the statements in the question stimulus.
Coming back after covering the next lesson:
MBT: The correct answer relies on no assumptions
MSS: The correct answer may rely on a small assumption
Can somebody please explain to me the difference between MBT and NA questions? I'm a bit confused in that they both MBT so whats the difference?
@Freddy_D gave a great answer, but I'll just add another way to look at it. In MBT questions you are working from the stimulus to the answer choices, that is, you are tasked with figuring out what can be inferred or derived from the stimulus, given that the information therein is true. With NA assumption questions, the information flow is the opposite. You are trying to find an answer that must be added to the premises in the stimulus for the argument to be logically acceptable.
Well, for both NA and MBT you are correct that both answer choices must be true; however, the key difference is why they must be true and how the answer choice functions. With a MBT you are essentially looking for a conclusion that must be true based on the premises that are provided in the stimulus thus creating a valid argument. With NA questions the stimulus already contains an argument (possibly a valid one) and you are tasked with finding an answer choice that must be true but also protects the existing argument.
Are these question stem quizzes representative of the frequency of each question stem type on actual tests?
I have the same question.
Could someone explain the difference between 24 and 32? I'm having trouble understanding why ones strengthen and ones PSA
#24 is asking you to strengthen the argument, the indicator in the question stem is "...most strengthens" the editorialist argument.
#32 is asking you for a pseudo sufficient assumption, the indicator in the question stem is "...principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?" it works the same way as a strengthening question, but in PSA questions it just asking for something that helps the argument in some sort of way. I hope this helps.
#22, isn't this a SA question stem? I am getting SA and MBT confused...
They are asking for a proper inference from the stimulus. It's a MBT question stem.