Self-study
To begin, no matter what I do, unless the questions is super easy, I cannot identify what is necessary for a conclusion to be true. I've tried finding a stategy that works for me, but nothing is clicking.
Common suggestions that don't work and why:
Negation technique - Even if I negate something and say it's not true, when I look back at the stimulus the conclusion no longer seems wholeheartedly sound. But it ends up being wrong all the time. Even if I negate something, I cannot identify why it's necessary or not.
Must be True - I suck at MBT questions, but even those are easier than NA's. But again, for the same reason as above, I can't look at a question and identify what is necessary for the argument to be true.
Identify the Gap - Most of the time I ask myself, why does P-> C, which I know is used for Sufficent questions, but it's the only stategy that actually feels like a stategy. But I can't identify a gap or flaw in the logic, becuase 9/10 I'm wrong.
Is there any other stategy to tackling these questions than using the negation technique that could help me identify what is necessary for an argument to take place?
3
3 comments
One thing you can try if you are better at flaw questions, is identify the flaw, because the necessary assumption is usually just repairing the flaw. Specifically, the flaw questions where the answer choices are a specific counterexample relating to content of the question. Not the flaw questions which describe a structural problem.
This may not work for all NA, but usually the necessary assumption is that one of the possible counterexamples is not the case.
For example, I grabbed a random level 5 NA question from an older PT you are likely not saving for timed tests. Take a look at 120.4.22. So please go open that, and read it carefully, and look for the flaw in the argument. I am not sure if I am allowed to post full questions here.
When I read that question, the flaw that stands out is that it is concluding the act of inhibiting displays of emotion causes a rise in heart rate. But what if just the emotional situation itself causes the rise in heart rate. We have no data on the heart rate of people who do not hide their emotions in emotion-provoking situations. They might also have a sharp rise in heart rate, and if that is the case this argument seems like it doesn't work at all.
If you can identify that flaw, we can look for an answer choice that fixes it.
A seems like it does, it says that an emotional situation on its own is not enough to cause a rise in heart rate if they are a nonrepressor. That seems to patch up the flaw. And A is false, that would mean the counter-example is true. And the argument completely falls apart.
None of the other answer choices do patch up the flaw. If you have follow up questions about any of the other answers and why they don't work let me know. Or if you try this as a drill and have problems with other examples, feel free to ask about them
Edit: I will just look at the analytics, E looks like it is the most picked wrong answers. But it just says the heart rate is the same for repressors or non-repressors. That doesn't have anything to do with the differences between nonrepressors choosing to try and hide their emotions, and nonrepressors who display there emotions.
I don't know if this will work for you, but if you really do struggle with NA questions, you can try also distinctly looking for flaws in the argument. And look for the answer that patches up those flaws. Could be a mental strategy that works.
finding the gap is still a good strategy. It will help you eliminate at least 2 answers maybe 3 which don't relate to the argument. But then when you get down to remaining 2 or 3
from there it helps me to see which one guarantees the conclusion; this is often a sufficient assumption rather than a necessary. then another answer will only strengthen then argument and when you negate it will weaken but its still possible. when you study try identifying these (untimed or during review)
When you do the negation strategy the answer shouldn't just weaken it should destroy the argument. Think "what are we even talking about" without this assumption. Note: if there's no better answer a sufficient assumption can be the necessary one
Right there with you on these