I REALLY REALLY struggle with sufficient-necessary understanding. This is the only explanation I’ve understood & I’ve done a couple months on lsat demon, googled it, asked chat got, and never get a solid answer
I am really confused. I only see two circles in the diagram- one above the shape containing '10' and one above the shape containing 'your mother' - am I missing something? It seems like there are three relata in the examples. Please clarify. Thank you for your help.
@Kevin_Lin that is what I see, yes- but I think that more circles were mentioned at some point. But there are only two circles signifying the starting point in the relate. That is the diagram, though.
The number 2 is referring to the number of relata's that are shown in the diagram. Example: Mother and Son. It can be three like mother, son, and sister but in the example shown in the diagram, it's only mom and son.
@SurinBaghbani I understood it as the individual parts of the relationship. One can exist without the other (10 can exist without 7) but the relationship cannot exist without at least both (10 cant be greater than 7, if 7 doesn't exist).
I kind of get it. it seems as if in a relationship one can't exist without the other, did i get it right? it like an incomplete sentence. am I overthinking it?
@yvetteboyd I took it as, the the relationship can't exist without the two relata. The relata can exist independently without the other relata but in order for the relationship to exist there must be the two relata.
Isn’t the term “relata” the plural form of relatum? Then, why does the diagram show a relationship to be the connection between 2 separate “relata” and not “relatums?”
@chief713832 The diagram shows a relationship between two "relata" instead of two "relatums" because of Latin grammar rules and the academic context of the term.
Latin Pluralization:Relatum is a Latin-derived word. In Latin, neuter nouns ending in -um form their plural by changing the suffix to -a. Therefore, one entity is a relatum, and two or more entities are relata.
"Relatums" is Incorrect: Using "relatums" would be an incorrect application of English pluralization rules to a Latin term.
The Context of Relationships: A single relationship typically requires two or more things to connect. The term relata is used to refer to both entities simultaneously (e.g., "The relationship between these two relata")
Hi! I'm studying for the November test to try and get into law school in 2026. Feel free to join my Discord for a study group and connecting! Btw - you're not cooked and you can do it! Praying for all of us fr https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk
wow! this is literally the first time the types of relationships has been broken down to me AND ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. i am so excited for this course!!!!
@hsuyt25 I watched the video, realized the article was mostly repeat, but went through the article to help write my notes. There is a few phrasing differences between the video and article
I'm rather confused about how "being in the USA is necessary for you to be in NY" isn't a sufficient answer? After all, you could be in Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, etc.
Ok, let's say "being in new york" is A and "being in the USA" is B. You need B in order to even think about A (you cannot think about being in New York if you aren't even in the US). Thus, A needs B in order to even be true, hence B is necessary for A. B is not sufficient for A because B by itself does not guarantee A (being in the USA does not guarantee you are in New York, as you rightfully pointed out). Since B does not automatically lead to A, it is not sufficient.
@ianmurr03 In order to be in NYC you have to be in the USA. You cant be in the USA without being in NYC. This means that its necessary to be in USA to be in NYC.
J.Y.'s relationships are short, difficult and painful. The LSAT's relationships are much simpler. The abstract idea between two or more relata. Relationships are important. Relationships. Important.
Even though relationships is an abstract idea (not physical or concrete), a useful thinking exercise is to think of a relationship as a chain (linkage) connecting two things. For example, think of the relationships of a food chain.
We start at the bottom, grass ——grasshopper —— frog —— hawk —— fungi (decomposer). The physical line represents the relationship (predatory/prey).
Now, I think it’s important to notice that the line goes either way. If I start at frog, then I know the frog is the predator of the grasshopper. However, if I start at grasshopper, then I know the grasshopper is the prey of the frog. How we view relationship can depend on which relata is our starting point. In this relationship, the frog and grasshopper are exactly equal in their predatory/prey relationship, because one cannot exists without the other.
Also, I think this example is also great because it shows us that indirect relationships exist, for example, starting at grass, we can see there is only a direct relationship with the grasshopper, but we can infer a relationship with the hawk by following the linkages.
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.
43 comments
I REALLY REALLY struggle with sufficient-necessary understanding. This is the only explanation I’ve understood & I’ve done a couple months on lsat demon, googled it, asked chat got, and never get a solid answer
I am really confused. I only see two circles in the diagram- one above the shape containing '10' and one above the shape containing 'your mother' - am I missing something? It seems like there are three relata in the examples. Please clarify. Thank you for your help.
@EmmaSmith This is the image that should appear:
@Kevin_Lin that is what I see, yes- but I think that more circles were mentioned at some point. But there are only two circles signifying the starting point in the relate. That is the diagram, though.
@EmmaSmith
Relata = the items (the two circle)
The number 2 is referring to the number of relata's that are shown in the diagram. Example: Mother and Son. It can be three like mother, son, and sister but in the example shown in the diagram, it's only mom and son.
Relationship = the way they are connected
Example: Mother of. It's a type of relation.
Hope this helps.
@EmmaSmith I think the circle means the biger part, that include the arrow. While the opposite is not posible. Like continent and content.
If they are two circles mean the relation goes both ways. Like John is friend with Michael, as much as Michael is friend with John.
Hope it helps, In case is still needed. I'm starting this as well.
whats a relata
@SurinBaghbani I understood it as the individual parts of the relationship. One can exist without the other (10 can exist without 7) but the relationship cannot exist without at least both (10 cant be greater than 7, if 7 doesn't exist).
I kind of get it. it seems as if in a relationship one can't exist without the other, did i get it right? it like an incomplete sentence. am I overthinking it?
@yvetteboyd I took it as, the the relationship can't exist without the two relata. The relata can exist independently without the other relata but in order for the relationship to exist there must be the two relata.
:)
@PaperChaseWebb :))
I'm curious how people prep'd for the LSAT like 20+ years ago??
i have a relationship with the LSAT. it's complicated
are anyone else's videos being weird? Like there isn't a play button
@SophiaBailey mine did not initially show, I just clicked the middle of the video to start it.
@SophiaBailey yes or sound
Isn’t the term “relata” the plural form of relatum? Then, why does the diagram show a relationship to be the connection between 2 separate “relata” and not “relatums?”
@chief713832 The diagram shows a relationship between two "relata" instead of two "relatums" because of Latin grammar rules and the academic context of the term.
Latin Pluralization: Relatum is a Latin-derived word. In Latin, neuter nouns ending in -um form their plural by changing the suffix to -a. Therefore, one entity is a relatum, and two or more entities are relata.
"Relatums" is Incorrect: Using "relatums" would be an incorrect application of English pluralization rules to a Latin term.
The Context of Relationships: A single relationship typically requires two or more things to connect. The term relata is used to refer to both entities simultaneously (e.g., "The relationship between these two relata")
My mom is quite a lady, you are right, thank you
Hi! I'm studying for the November test to try and get into law school in 2026. Feel free to join my Discord for a study group and connecting! Btw - you're not cooked and you can do it! Praying for all of us fr https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk
j.y. millennialing out with the hp reference
wow! this is literally the first time the types of relationships has been broken down to me AND ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. i am so excited for this course!!!!
Are you guys both watching the vid and reading the article on only one?
@hsuyt25 I watched the video, realized the article was mostly repeat, but went through the article to help write my notes. There is a few phrasing differences between the video and article
Got it, thanks! I've been mostly just reading the articles and I feel like that's ok...I hope. GL w/studying!!
@hsuyt25 both!
I'm rather confused about how "being in the USA is necessary for you to be in NY" isn't a sufficient answer? After all, you could be in Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, etc.
Ok, let's say "being in new york" is A and "being in the USA" is B. You need B in order to even think about A (you cannot think about being in New York if you aren't even in the US). Thus, A needs B in order to even be true, hence B is necessary for A. B is not sufficient for A because B by itself does not guarantee A (being in the USA does not guarantee you are in New York, as you rightfully pointed out). Since B does not automatically lead to A, it is not sufficient.
@ianmurr03 In order to be in NYC you have to be in the USA. You cant be in the USA without being in NYC. This means that its necessary to be in USA to be in NYC.
@aliegeaksu great explanation, thank you! i was sorting it out as i came across your reply lol
so if i reference my ex enough we'll be in a relationship again? got it.
im manifesting this for u
@janeelkins yes
A relationship is an abstract idea that exisits between 2 or more relata. The LSAT is full of relationships.
LSAT = Relata 1?
Full of relationships = Relata 2?
period
Dubs
good
yes
"quite a woman at that" had me dying LOL
7sage knows whats up
J.Y.'s relationships are short, difficult and painful. The LSAT's relationships are much simpler. The abstract idea between two or more relata. Relationships are important. Relationships. Important.
Even though relationships is an abstract idea (not physical or concrete), a useful thinking exercise is to think of a relationship as a chain (linkage) connecting two things. For example, think of the relationships of a food chain.
We start at the bottom, grass ——grasshopper —— frog —— hawk —— fungi (decomposer). The physical line represents the relationship (predatory/prey).
Now, I think it’s important to notice that the line goes either way. If I start at frog, then I know the frog is the predator of the grasshopper. However, if I start at grasshopper, then I know the grasshopper is the prey of the frog. How we view relationship can depend on which relata is our starting point. In this relationship, the frog and grasshopper are exactly equal in their predatory/prey relationship, because one cannot exists without the other.
Also, I think this example is also great because it shows us that indirect relationships exist, for example, starting at grass, we can see there is only a direct relationship with the grasshopper, but we can infer a relationship with the hawk by following the linkages.