Another way to think of "sufficient" is "sufficient to guarantee". Being J.Y. is sufficient to guarantee that you work at 7sage. Working at 7sage is not sufficient to guarantee that you are J.Y. (you could be one of the other staffers).
Being a cat is sufficient (it satisfies the requirement) of being a mammal.
If you're a cat, it's necessary (it's inevitable) that you are also a mammal.
Try flipping the ideas (taking the contrapositive) to see if it still makes sense. If it doesn't, you probably mixed them up.
Does being a cat make you a mammal?
Yes. All cats mammals.
Does being a mammal make you a cat?
No. You could be a cat, however, being a mammal does not necessarily mean you are definitely cat. Cats are just one of many potential mammals you could be.
Say you have an apple. Does that mean you have a fruit?
Yes.
But does having a fruit mean that you definitely have an apple?
No. If you have a fruit, you could have an apple, but having a fruit does not necessarily mean you definitely have an apple. Apples are just one of many potential fruits you could have.
Having an apple is sufficient (it satisfies the requirement) of having a fruit (if you have an apple, it's inevitable that you have a fruit, so fruit is the necessary condition).
However, having a fruitdoes not satisfy the requirement of having an apple.
Hope that helps. Did you go through the core curriculum segments on this? Learning "lawgic" and how to take the contrapositive of statements like this can be super helpful!
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
3 comments
Another way to think of "sufficient" is "sufficient to guarantee". Being J.Y. is sufficient to guarantee that you work at 7sage. Working at 7sage is not sufficient to guarantee that you are J.Y. (you could be one of the other staffers).
My tutor told me that you can identify a sufficient condition question if the question stem has the word "if" and "assumed." Such as the following:
• “Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the argument to be properly drawn?”
• “The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?”
• “Which one of the following, if assumed, would be sufficient in drawing the conclusion above?”
• Which one of the following, if assumed, most strongly justifies the argument?”
Being a cat is sufficient (it satisfies the requirement) of being a mammal.
If you're a cat, it's necessary (it's inevitable) that you are also a mammal.
Try flipping the ideas (taking the contrapositive) to see if it still makes sense. If it doesn't, you probably mixed them up.
Does being a cat make you a mammal?
Yes. All cats mammals.
Does being a mammal make you a cat?
No. You could be a cat, however, being a mammal does not necessarily mean you are definitely cat. Cats are just one of many potential mammals you could be.
Say you have an apple. Does that mean you have a fruit?
Yes.
But does having a fruit mean that you definitely have an apple?
No. If you have a fruit, you could have an apple, but having a fruit does not necessarily mean you definitely have an apple. Apples are just one of many potential fruits you could have.
Having an apple is sufficient (it satisfies the requirement) of having a fruit (if you have an apple, it's inevitable that you have a fruit, so fruit is the necessary condition).
However, having a fruit does not satisfy the requirement of having an apple.
Hope that helps. Did you go through the core curriculum segments on this? Learning "lawgic" and how to take the contrapositive of statements like this can be super helpful!