Subset → Superset Being in the small group is enough to be in the big group .If you work at OPA, you definitely work in D.C. politics
If you work at OPA, then you definitely work in D.C. politics — being in the small group is sufficient for being in the big group.
BUT…
You can work in D.C. politics without being in OPA (e.g., Cyrus, Mellie, Fitz when he was president).
So being in OPA is not necessary to be in the D.C. politics group.
Superset → Subset Being in the big group is required but not enough to be in the small group Olivia trusting you doesn’t automatically place you in OPA
To be in Olivia’s inner circle, you MUST be someone she trusts. So being in the big group (people she trusts) is necessary.
BUT…
Just because she trusts you doesn’t automatically put you in her inner circle. For example, she trusted Fitz, but he wasn’t in OPA’s inner circle.
So being in the big group is not sufficient to put you in the small group.
If you got this far, may God supply you with whatever you need to do well for this test!
so would an example be Birmingham (subset) and Alabama (superset). Birmingham is sufficient for living in Alabama, but not necessary. Living in Alabama is necessary to live in Birmingham.
Loved the way he explained this. Subset (NYC) membership is sufficient (Okay) for superset (USA) membership because you have to be in the USA to be NYC but it is not necessary because you can be the Grand Canyon and still be in the USA.
While
Superset (USA) membership is necessary (needed) for subset (NYC) membership because you have to be in the USA but not sufficient if its earth.
He explained it well— but I got confused a bit so I added more understanding.
A mammal subset is not dependent on cats— it’s Sufficient (S) as a stand alone. Whereas, Cats are dependent as a Necessary (N) needing mammals in order to stand.
A cat (subset) — is a (necessary) — mammal (superset).
A mammal (superset) — is Not (why? Bc, Sufficient) — a cat.
And we know this— because mammals are a larger extended category compared to cats— where as the only difference within cats are modifier (fat, colored, etc).
I had a hard time understanding this, but I continued through the lesson. Once you work with some real LSAT problems, come back to this video. It will click!!!
A tip to help anyone that is confused: Don't use the words "membership", "Sufficient", and "necessary." Instead just say something like this: Being a part of mammal set is not enough to be a part of cat set—but being a mama is needed to be a part of cat set. Or: You need to be a mammal or a part of mammal set to be in the cat club. Play around with the words.
I came back to this at the end of the "Conditional and Set Logic" portion because I was still a little confused on the definitions. But reading it again with the information I have now, the "Let's Review" section makes way more sense. If it's a little confusing now, keep pushing, it might make more sense for you towards the end.
Death liquid tea is a drink, but not all drinks are death liquid tea. Being a drink is necessary to being death liquid tea. Being death liquid tea is sufficient to being a drink.
Is there any way I could get a different example so I can better understand this? I find myself falling into the traps of confusing sufficiency for necessity the most.
its like "all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares." you have to be a rectangle to be a square (necessity), but you dont have to be a square to be a rectangle (sufficient) even if you can be.
I like to think of the necessary element as something that logically or (necessarily follows) the condition of sufficiency. I anticipate that the difficulty lies in distinguishing ambiguous sets and correctly categorizing the relationship. very similar to if then statements.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding:
If you are in the Empire State Building, it belongs to the subset of NYC and is sufficient for membership in the superset of the USA. However, this is not necessary because you can belong to the superset but not the subset (Grand Canyon)
Belonging to the Superset (USA) is a necessary condition for membership in the subset (NYC), but the Eiffel Tower is not ‘sufficiently’ eligible for membership in the subset since it does not belong to the superset.
All cats are sufficiently mammals but not all mammals need to be cats
It is /enough/ (sufficient) for an animal to be a cat to be considered a mammal
It is /not enough/ for an mammal to automatically be considered a cat (it needs to be explicitely a cat to be considered a cat)
8
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
141 comments
All cats (subset) are mammals (superset). So, mammal club's membership is necessary to be in the cat club.
But not all mammals are cats. So, cat club membership is sufficient, but not necessary, to be in the mammal club.
A cat must be a mammal. But a mammal may or may not be a cat.
Subset → Superset Being in the small group is enough to be in the big group .If you work at OPA, you definitely work in D.C. politics
If you work at OPA, then you definitely work in D.C. politics — being in the small group is sufficient for being in the big group.
BUT…
You can work in D.C. politics without being in OPA (e.g., Cyrus, Mellie, Fitz when he was president).
So being in OPA is not necessary to be in the D.C. politics group.
Superset → Subset Being in the big group is required but not enough to be in the small group Olivia trusting you doesn’t automatically place you in OPA
To be in Olivia’s inner circle, you MUST be someone she trusts. So being in the big group (people she trusts) is necessary.
BUT…
Just because she trusts you doesn’t automatically put you in her inner circle. For example, she trusted Fitz, but he wasn’t in OPA’s inner circle.
So being in the big group is not sufficient to put you in the small group.
If you got this far, may God supply you with whatever you need to do well for this test!
so would an example be Birmingham (subset) and Alabama (superset). Birmingham is sufficient for living in Alabama, but not necessary. Living in Alabama is necessary to live in Birmingham.
Loved the way he explained this. Subset (NYC) membership is sufficient (Okay) for superset (USA) membership because you have to be in the USA to be NYC but it is not necessary because you can be the Grand Canyon and still be in the USA.
While
Superset (USA) membership is necessary (needed) for subset (NYC) membership because you have to be in the USA but not sufficient if its earth.
google helped me on this one. i was getting too caught up in the language.
He explained it well— but I got confused a bit so I added more understanding.
A mammal subset is not dependent on cats— it’s Sufficient (S) as a stand alone. Whereas, Cats are dependent as a Necessary (N) needing mammals in order to stand.
A cat (subset) — is a (necessary) — mammal (superset).
A mammal (superset) — is Not (why? Bc, Sufficient) — a cat.
And we know this— because mammals are a larger extended category compared to cats— where as the only difference within cats are modifier (fat, colored, etc).
Hope this helped. This is from my notes.
can someone explain Superset membership is necessary for subset membership, but not sufficient. in terms of the cats?
I had a hard time understanding this, but I continued through the lesson. Once you work with some real LSAT problems, come back to this video. It will click!!!
I understand the logic, I just don't understand the WORDS (sufficient & necessary)
So say I'm Lubbock, Texas.
To be in Lubbock it is necessary that I am in Texas. To be in Texas it is necessary that I am in the USA.
Lubbock is a subset of Texas and USA is a superset to Texas.
It is sufficient if I live in Texas to be in Lubbock and sufficient to be in the USA if im in Texas?
I think I understand it but I’m not sure …
It is sufficient that basketball is a sport, but not necessary for the sport to be basketball????
A tip to help anyone that is confused: Don't use the words "membership", "Sufficient", and "necessary." Instead just say something like this: Being a part of mammal set is not enough to be a part of cat set—but being a mama is needed to be a part of cat set. Or: You need to be a mammal or a part of mammal set to be in the cat club. Play around with the words.
subset membership--->superset membership, in NYC--->in USA
ya'll get any of that?
hey so this makes no sense and it makes me want to die
All squares are a type of rectangle but not all rectangles are sqaures!
To much talking..
I came back to this at the end of the "Conditional and Set Logic" portion because I was still a little confused on the definitions. But reading it again with the information I have now, the "Let's Review" section makes way more sense. If it's a little confusing now, keep pushing, it might make more sense for you towards the end.
Death liquid tea is a drink, but not all drinks are death liquid tea. Being a drink is necessary to being death liquid tea. Being death liquid tea is sufficient to being a drink.
Is there any way I could get a different example so I can better understand this? I find myself falling into the traps of confusing sufficiency for necessity the most.
so basically to be cat you do not necessarily have to be fat. but in order to be a fat cat it is necessary to be a cat
its like "all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares." you have to be a rectangle to be a square (necessity), but you dont have to be a square to be a rectangle (sufficient) even if you can be.
I like to think of the necessary element as something that logically or (necessarily follows) the condition of sufficiency. I anticipate that the difficulty lies in distinguishing ambiguous sets and correctly categorizing the relationship. very similar to if then statements.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding:
If you are in the Empire State Building, it belongs to the subset of NYC and is sufficient for membership in the superset of the USA. However, this is not necessary because you can belong to the superset but not the subset (Grand Canyon)
Belonging to the Superset (USA) is a necessary condition for membership in the subset (NYC), but the Eiffel Tower is not ‘sufficiently’ eligible for membership in the subset since it does not belong to the superset.
All cats are sufficiently mammals but not all mammals need to be cats
It is /enough/ (sufficient) for an animal to be a cat to be considered a mammal
It is /not enough/ for an mammal to automatically be considered a cat (it needs to be explicitely a cat to be considered a cat)