Self-study
Hey, so I would appreciate literally any answer, but I thought for SA we do P->C. To be fair, the explanations do make sense to me. However, I barely see the P->C thing going on now. I thought the answer choices should be linked to the conclusion, but it seems like right now we're just filling in the gaps. So I want to know how exactly to approach these questions. Or, when do I know when I can use P->C? Any suggestions and tips are GREATLY appreciated.
All in all, I am just so frustated. I take over 15 mins to get even a level 3 question and close to 30 mins to even understand a lvl 4 question. I have about 8 months to study but sometimes it feels like I'm chasing a ghost. I don't even know if I have what it takes.
3
4 comments
I think SA is one of the question types that's easiest to learn & pick up once you know what you need to do, so don't fret.
If a stimulus says citizens burning down houses is harmful to society. additionally, burning down houses can kill other citizens. therefore the government should make it illegal to burn down houses. Why should the government make it illegal? This is not proven by the argument 100%. You're looking for an answer like "the government should make illegal any activity that is harmful to society or has potential to kill people."
on harder questions they may use tricky language to try to trap you so instead it might say "the state has an obligation to bar conduct with potential to be detrimental to its constituents"... but it's still the same thing, p > c
There are basically 3 linking style sufficient assumptions that relate to your question. You can be looking at any one of the following and which you are looking at depends on context:
A->B
A.
_____
C
A->B
C->D
_____
A->D
A->B
_____
C->B
Argument 1's SA is the only one which take the form P->C for the sufficient assumption.
Argument 2's SA takes the form P->P (B->C).
Argument 3's SA take the form C->P (C->A).
It all depends on what holes you need to sew up with your sufficient assumption. Is the gap from premise to premise, or from premise to conclusion? Notice in argument 2, there's no repetition between the premises (every condition is unique) and both ideas in the conclusion have been mentioned elsewhere. That's the sign that you need a link between premises. As to argument 3, notice that there's a new idea in the conclusion (C) BUT it's a sufficient condition in a conditional statement. That means you need to slap it on to the beginning of your premise to get the chain you need (C->A). Using LSHopeful's example below we can construct argument 1, 2, and 3.
For argument 1, delete Premise 3. For argument 2, delete premise 2. For argument 3 delete premise 1.
Sufficient assumptions are what they sound like. What is the assumption that is sufficient for your conclusion to follow from your premises? In other words, what is something that if true, when combined with the other premises being true would guarantee a true conclusion.
Take the argument:
Garfield is a housecat
All housecats are pets
All pets are cute
Therefore, Garfield is cute
If the argument was missing any one of the premises, adding it back would be "sufficient" to fix it. If premise #2 was missing, adding it back is "filling the gaps" as you said. If premise #3 is missing it is "linked to the conclusion" as you said. Importantly, premise #1 could also be missing or you could jump over premises entirely. A sufficient assumption would also be "garfield is cute" (skipping past the whole argument but guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion if true).
I certainly respect the 7Sage approach to these questions, but personally I try to prioritize a blend of simplicity and precision.
For Sufficient Assumption questions, my process is basically this:
Treat the answer choice as new information added to the passage. Then ask:
Does this make the argument a guaranteed winner?
That’s really the whole task.
But to apply that consistently, we have to be very precise about what “the argument” actually is.
To me, the argument consists of:
The conclusion = what the author wants you to agree with or do
The reasoning = why you should agree with it or do it
The correct SA answer removes any remaining chance that the conclusion fails to follow from the reasoning. In other words, it guarantees the validity of the argument rather than merely strengthening it.
That’s why SA questions feel similar to Strengthen questions, but operate at a higher standard. A Strengthen answer helps the argument. A Sufficient Assumption answer closes the loop completely.
Also, something important that I think confuses a lot of people:
If the correct SA answer choice turned out to be false, that does not automatically mean the argument collapses. The argument might still be perfectly good, but it's validity cannot be guaranteed by adding that particular answer choice.
Some SA answers directly validate the conclusion itself. Others strengthen the connection between the reasoning and the conclusion. Either way, the end result has to be a fully validated argument.
And I totally understand that at first this can sound like more LSAT jargon. But honestly, once the process becomes clear, SA questions become much more manageable because the task itself is actually very consistent from question to question.
One last thing, this also helps clarify the difference between Sufficient and Necessary Assumption questions:
Sufficient Assumption answers are "new information". If true, the correct answer DOES guarantee the argument succeeds. If not true, it DOES NOT gaurantee that the argument fails, but it has not been proven yet.
Necessary Assumption answers are not new informatin, they reflect a gap or omission that is already present in passage. If not true, the correct answer DOES gurantee that the argument fails. If true, it DOES NOT guarantee the argument succeeds, but it does at least survive.
Sorry for the long post, but it is kind of an involved area of the test, so I thought I'd share my whole thoughts. Hope it helps!